the past condition of organic nature-第2部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


certain　difficulties；　the　very　first　of　which　is　that　of　finding　how
rapidly　sediments　are　deposited；　but　the　main　difficultya　difficulty
which　renders　any　certain　calculations　of　such　a　matter　out　of　the
questionis　this；　the　sea…bottom　on　which　the　deposit　takes　place　is
continually　shifting。

Instead　of　the　surface　of　the　earth　being　that　stable；　fixed　thing　that
it　is　popularly　believed　to　be；　being；　in　common　parlance；　the　very
emblem　of　fixity　itself；　it　is　incessantly　moving；　and　is；　in　fact；　as
unstable　as　the　surface　of　the　sea；　except　that　its　undulations　are
infinitely　slower　and　enormously　higher　and　deeper。

Now；　what　is　the　effect　of　this　oscillation？　　Take　the　case　to　which　I
have　previously　referred。　　The　finer　or　coarser　sediments　that　are
carried　down　by　the　current　of　the　river；　will　only　be　carried　out　a
certain　distance；　and　eventually；　as　we　have　already　seen；　on　reaching
the　stiller　part　of　the　ocean；　will　be　deposited　at　the　bottom。

Let　C　y　（Fig。　4）　be　the　sea…bottom；　y　D　the　shore；　x　y　the　sea…level；
then　the　coarser　deposit　will　subside　over　the　region　B；　the　finer　over
A；　while　beyond　A　there　will　be　no　deposit　at　all；　and；　consequently；
no　record　will　be　kept；　simply　because　no　deposit　is　going　on。　　Now；
suppose　that　the　whole　land；　C；　D；　which　we　have　regarded　as　stationary；
goes　down；　as　it　does　so；　both　A　and　B　go　further　out　from　the　shore；
which　will　be　at　yl；　x1；　y1；　being　the　new　sea…level。　　The　consequence
will　be　that　the　layer　of　mud　（A）；　being　now；　for　the　most　part；
further　than　the　force　of　the　current　is　strong　enough　to　convey　even
the　finest　'debris'；　will；　of　course；　receive　no　more　deposits；　and
having　attained　a　certain　thickness　will　now　grow　no　thicker。

We　should　be　misled　in　taking　the　thickness　of　that　layer；　whenever　it
may　be　exposed　to　our　view；　as　a　record　of　time　in　the　manner　in　which
we　are　now　regarding　this　subject；　as　it　would　give　us　only　an
imperfect　and　partial　record：　it　would　seem　to　represent　too　short　a
period　of　time。

Fig。4。

Suppose；　on　the　other　hand；　that　the　land　（C　D）　had　gone　on　rising
slowly　and　graduallysay　an　inch　or　two　inches　in　the　course　of　a
century；what　would　be　the　practical　effect　of　that　movement？　　Why；
that　the　sediment　A　and　B　which　has　been　already　deposited；　would
eventually　be　brought　nearer　to　the　shore…level；　and　again　subjected　to
the　wear　and　tear　of　the　sea；　and　directly　the　sea　begins　to　act　upon
it；　it　would　of　course　soon　cut　up　and　carry　it　away；　to　a　greater　or
less　extent；　to　be　re…deposited　further　out。

Well；　as　there　is；　in　all　probability；　not　one　single　spot　on　the　whole
surface　of　the　earth；　which　has　not　been　up　and　down　in　this　way　a
great　many　times；　it　follows　that　the　thickness　of　the　deposits　formed
at　any　particular　spot　cannot　be　taken　（even　supposing　we　had　at　first
obtained　correct　data　as　to　the　rate　at　which　they　took　place）　as
affording　reliable　information　as　to　the　period　of　time　occupied　in　its
deposit。　So　that　you　see　it　is　absolutely　necessary　from　these　facts；
seeing　that　our　record　entirely　consists　of　accumulations　of　mud；
superimposed　one　on　the　other；　seeing　in　the　next　place　that　any
particular　spots　on　which　accumulations　have　occurred；　have　been
constantly　moving　up　and　down；　and　sometimes　out　of　the　reach　of　a
deposit；　and　at　other　times　its　own　deposit　broken　up　and　carried　away；
it　follows　that　our　record　must　be　in　the　highest　degree　imperfect；　and
we　have　hardly　a　trace　left　of　thick　deposits；　or　any　definite
knowledge　of　the　area　that　they　occupied；　in　a　great　many　cases。　　And
mark　this！　　That　supposing　even　that　the　whole　surface　of　the　earth　had
been　accessible　to　the　geologist；that　man　had　had　access　to　every
part　of　the　earth；　and　had　made　sections　of　the　whole；　and　put　them　all
together；even　then　his　record　must　of　necessity　be　imperfect。

But　to　how　much　has　man　really　access？　　If　you　will　look　at　this　Map　you
will　see　that　it　represents　the　proportion　of　the　sea　to　the　earth：
this　coloured　part　indicates　all　the　dry　land；　and　this　other　portion
is　the　water。　　You　will　notice　at　once　that　the　water　covers
three…fifths　of　the　whole　surface　of　the　globe；　and　has　covered　it　in
the　same　manner　ever　since　man　has　kept　any　record　of　his　own
observations；　to　say　nothing　of　the　minute　period　during　which　he　has
cultivated　geological　inquiry。　　So　that　three…fifths　of　the　surface　of
the　earth　is　shut　out　from　us　because　it　is　under　the　sea。　　Let　us　look
at　the　other　two…fifths；　and　see　what　are　the　countries　in　which
anything　that　may　be　termed　searching　geological　inquiry　has　been
carried　out：　a　good　deal　of　France；　Germany；　and　Great　Britain　and
Ireland；　bits　of　Spain；　of　Italy；　and　of　Russia；　have　been　examined；
but　of　the　whole　great　mass　of　Africa；　except　parts　of　the　southern
extremity；　we　know　next　to　nothing；　little　bits　of　India；　but　of　the
greater　part　of　the　Asiatic　continent　nothing；　bits　of　the　Northern
American　States　and　of　Canada；　but　of　the　greater　part　of　the　continent
of　North　America；　and　in　still　larger　proportion；　of　South　America；
nothing！

Under　these　circumstances；　it　follows　that　even　with　reference　to　that
kind　of　imperfect　information　which　we　can　possess；　it　is　only　of　about
the　ten…thousandth　part　of　the　accessible　parts　of　the　earth　that　has
been　examined　properly。　Therefore；　it　is　with　justice　that　the　most
thoughtful　of　those　who　are　concerned　in　these　inquiries　insist
continually　upon　the　imperfection　of　the　geological　record；　for；　I
repeat；　it　is　absolutely　necessary；　from　the　nature　of　things；　that
that　record　should　be　of　the　most　fragmentary　and　imperfect　character。
Unfortunately　this　circumstance　has　been　constantly　forgotten。　　Men　of
science；　like　young　colts　in　a　fresh　pasture；　are　apt　to　be　exhilarated
on　being　turned　into　a　new　field　of　inquiry；　to　go　off　at　a
hand…gallop；　in　total　disregard　of　hedges　and　ditches；　losing　sight　of
the　real　limitation　of　their　inquiries；　and　to　forget　the　extreme
imperfection　of　what　is　really　known。　Geologists　have　imagined　that
they　could　tell　us　what　was　going　on　at　all　parts　of　the　earth's
surface　during　a　given　epoch；　they　have　talked　of　this　deposit　being
contemporaneous　with　that　deposit；　until；　from　our　little　local
histories　of　the　changes　at　limited　spots　of　the　earth's　surface；　they
have　constructed　a　universal　history　of　the　globe　as　full　of　wonders　and
portents　as　any　other　story　of　antiquity。

But　what　does　this　attempt　to　construct　a　universal　history　of　the　globe
imply？　　It　implies　that　we　shall　not　only　have　a　precise　knowledge　of
the　events　which　have　occurred　at　any　particular　point；　but　that　we
shall　be　able　to　say　what　events；　at　any　one　spot；　took　place　at　the
same　time　with　those　at　other　spots。

Let　us　see　how　far　that　is　in　the　nature　of　things　practicable。　　Suppose
that　here　I　make　a　section　of　the　Lake　of　Killarney；　and　here　the
section　of　another　lakethat　of　Loch　Lomond　in　Scotland　for　instance。
The　rivers　that　flow　into　them　are　constantly　carrying　down　deposits　of
mud；　and　beds；　or　strata；　are　being　as　constantly　formed；　one　above　the
other；　at　the　bottom　of　those　lakes。　　Now；　there　is　not　a　shadow　of
doubt　that　in　these　two　lakes　the　lower　beds　are　all　older　than　the
upperthere　is　no　doubt　about　that；　but　what　does　'this'　tell　us　about
the　age　of　any　given　bed　in　Loch　Lomond；　as　compared　with　that　of　any
given　bed　in　the　Lake　of　Killarney？　　It　is；　indeed；　obvious　that　if　any
two　sets　of　deposits　are　separated　and　discontinuous；　there　is
absolutely　no　means　whatever　given　you　by　the　nature　of　the　deposit　of
saying　whether　one　is　much　younger　or　older　than　the　other；　but　you　may
say；　as　many　have　said　and　think；　that　the　case　is　very　much　altered　if
the　beds　which　we　are　comparing　are　continuous。　　Suppose　two　beds　of
mud　hardened　into　rock；A　and　B…are　seen　in　section。　（Fig。　　5。）

＇Fig。　5。＇

Well；　you　say；　it　is　admitted　that　the　lowermost　bed　is　always　the
older。　　Very　well；　B；　therefore；　is　older　than　A。　　No　doubt；　'as　a
whole'；　it　is　so；　or　if　any　parts　of　the　two　beds　which　are　in　the　same
vertical　line　are　compared；　it　is　so。　　But　suppose　you　take　what　seems
a　very　natural　step　further；　and　say　that　the　part　'a'　of　the　bed　A　is
younger　than　the　part　'b'　of　the　bed　B。　　Is　this　sound　reasoning？　　If
you　find　any　record　of　changes　taking　place　at　'b'；　did　they　occur
before　any　events　which　took　place　while　'a'　was　being　deposited？　　It
looks　all　very　plain　sailing；　indeed；　to　say　that　they　did；　and　yet
there　is　no　proof　of　anything　of　the　kind。　　As　the　former　Director　of
this　Institution；　Sir　H。　De　la　Beche；　long　ago　showed；　this　reasoning
may　involve　an　entire　fallacy。　　It　is　extremely　possible　that　'a'　may
have　been　deposited　ages　before　'b'。　　It　is　very　easy　to　understand　how
that　can　be。　　To　return　to　Fig。　4；　when　A　and　B　were　deposited；　they
were　'substantially'　contemporaneous；　A　being　simply　the　finer　deposit；
and　B　the　coarser　of　the　same　detritus　or　waste　of　land。　　Now　suppose
that　that　sea…bottom　goes　down　（as　shown　in　Fig。　4）；　so　that　the　first
deposit　is　carried　no　farther　than　'a'；　forming　the　bed　Al；　and　the
coarse　no　farther　than　'b'；　forming　the　bed　B1；　the　result　will　be　the
formation　of　two　continuous　beds；　one　of　fine　sediment　（A　A1）
over…lapping　another　of　coarse　sediment　（B　Bl）。　Now　suppose　the　whole
sea…bottom　is　raised　up；　and　a　section　exposed　about　the　point　Al；　no
doubt；　'at　this　spot'；　the　upper　bed　is　younger　than　the　lower。　　But　we
should　obviously　greatly　err　if　we　concluded　that　the　mass　of　the　upper
bed　at　A　was　younger　than　the　lower　bed　at　B；　for　we　have　just　seen
that　they　are　contemporaneous　deposits。　　Still　more　should　we　be　in
error　if　we　supposed　the　upper　bed　at　A　to　be　younger　than　the
continuation　of　the　lower　bed　at　Bl；　for　A　was　deposited　long　before
B1。　　In　fine；　if；　instead　of　comparing　immediately　adjacent　parts　of
two　beds；　one　of　which　lies　upon　another；　we　compare　distant　parts；　it
is　quite　possible　that　the　upper　may　be　any　number　of　years　older　than
the　under；　and　the　under　any　number　of　years　younger　than　the　upper。

Now　you　must　not　suppose　that　I　put　this　before　you　for　the　purpose　of
ra