• Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, predators get excited when you turn around and start moving away. These eyes are just asking “what are you doing step bro?”.

  • TOModera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    8 days ago

    Probably humans, given they went from 100k to 5.6k in population in 100 years and are still in decline.

      • TOModera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Very good point, I didn’t mean to conflate it happened in the last 100 years, more so the data of their deaths that I had access to had that timeliness.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Even arrows or spears wouldn’t have been long enough to develop such a trait. And with those tools, still I don’t think Tiger would have been a primary target for humans. Seems like for most societies felines and canines were just not things we eat. Though maybe hunted for the pelt? In which case maybe they do eat the meat?

        • Damage@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          Also statistically (since we’re talking evolution) it wouldn’t help much against humans, we’ve got good vision and intellect, the chances to fool us enough times for this adaptation to arise are slim.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      i mean i’ll concede that it’s not entirely ineffective, but i very much question that it would significantly affect their survival.

      If a human sees a tiger which they know may well kill another human, they’re not going to give a toss about where the tiger is looking, they’re going to have 5 friends with them who all carry the best weapons they have available to turn that tiger into a rug.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 days ago

    Their predators are other tigers. There are tribes in Asia who wear masks on the backs of their heads with large eyes to deter tiger attacks. Apparently the tiger is very much about stabbing you in the back, and not so big on open confrontation.

  • pinkystew@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    No living thing has a feature “to” do anything. That implies decision making, which is intelligent design.

    Tigers have spots on their ears, which can confuse attackers.

    Tigers did not develop those spots “to” confuse attackers.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I hear what you’re saying, and you’re 100% correct, but I think most people will realize it’s a figure of speech, and easier to say than “Via the process of gene mutation trial and error over many, many generations of tigers, spots have developed on their ears that look like eyes, resulting in predation from behind being discourged.”

    • homura1650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 days ago

      All models are wrong, but some are useful. Thinking of evolved features as having a purpose is wrong, but it is also incredibly useful.

      Why do we have eyes? In some sense, there is no reason, just a sequence of random coincidences, combined with a slightly non-randon bias refered to as “survival of the fittest” (itself an incorrect model).

      However, saying that we have eyes to see has incredible explanatory power, which makes it a useful model. Just like Newton’s law of Universal gravity. We’ve known it that is wrong for a century at this point, but most of the time still talk as if it’s true, because it is useful.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Yes, they did though. That’s the purpose of this evolutionary trait. I see what you’re getting at, but you seem to be implying this was a concidence

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      in the Ganges Delta in India, where tigers living under protection in a reserve had been killing about 60 people a year.

      Geez that’s a lot.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean, deer kill about 400 people a year in the US and they aren’t even trying. 280 million people live in the Delta alongside a predator that is actually trying to kill them, so it mkaes sense.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’ve read somewhere that tigers usually aren’t trying to kill people, humans are not their natural prey and they normally ignore them. The ones that do kill people seem to have a bad experience with humans, like being shot at. Fuck humans.

      • _bcron@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I’ve seen people get out of vehicles to try to take selfies with grizzly bear cubs. I could kinda see black bears but like wtf. But yeah you get slapped once by either and you’re pretty much dead if you aren’t within 10 minutes to a hospital.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      That makes sense. Tigers are just big cats - they’re all kinda jerks to each other (let alone other animals), but I suppose that comes with being an apex predator.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Tigers are territorial and solitary but quite social, they don’t usually get into fights when they meet, that only happens when they have an actual territorial conflict because there’s too many tigers on too little land. They’re perfectly fine with others visiting their prowling grounds, they might even hunt together, just don’t overstay your welcome. Actually not that terribly different from how humans treat their houses.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 days ago

    Fun fact the South American short face bear is the only Ice aged giant that is thought not to be driven extinct by humans and fact humans could not hunt it, Tigers would be a pleasant snack for them.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    Wild tigers, as apex predators, have few natural threats. Their primary competitors include Asiatic wild dogs (dholes), which can harass tigers in packs.

  • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Do they have them when they are little too? Or maybe it worked out that it was less likely predators would yoink their babies because it seemed like they were always watching. Can’t sneak up on someone with eyes on the back of their heads, that never close, even while sleeping.