We might consider a mutation to be either “good” or “bad” in the sense that any change that helps a creature live more easily and comfortably is good and that the reverse is bad. It seems reasonable that random changes in the gene pattern are almost sure to be bad. Consider that any creature, including man, is the product of millions of years of evolution. In every generation those individuals with a gene pattern that fit them better for their environment won out over those with less effective patterns—won out in the race for food, for mates, and for safety. The “more fit” had more offspring and crowded out the “less fit”. By now, then, the set of genes with which we are normally equipped is the end product of long ages of such _natural selection_. A random change cannot be expected to improve it any more than random changes would improve any very complex, intricate, and delicate structure. [Illustration: _Evolution of the horse (skull, hindfoot, and forefoot shown). Note the changes over a 60-million-year period from the Eocene era to the present._] Pleistocene and Recent Pliocene Miocene Oligocene Eocene Yet over the eons, creatures have indeed changed, largely through the effects of mutation. If mutations are almost always for the worse, how can one explain that evolution seems to progress toward the better and that out of a primitive form as simple as an amoeba, for instance, there eventually emerged man? In the first place, environment is not fixed. Climate changes, conditions change, the food supply may change, the nature of living enemies may change. A gene pattern that is very useful under one set of conditions may be less useful under another. Suppose, for instance, that man had lived in tropical areas for thousands of years and had developed a heavily pigmented skin as a protection against sunburn. Any child who, through a mutation, found himself incapable of forming much pigment, would be at a severe disadvantage in the outdoor activities engaged in by his tribe. He would not do well and such a mutated gene would never establish itself for long. If a number of these men migrated to northern Europe, however, children with dark skin would absorb insufficient sunlight during the long winter when the sun was low in the sky, and visible for brief periods only. Dark-skinned children would, under such conditions, tend to suffer from rickets. Mutant children with pale skin would absorb more of what weak sunlight there was and would suffer less. There would be little danger of sunburn so there would be no penalty counteracting this new advantage of pale skins. It would be the dark-skinned people who would tend to die out. In the end, you would have dark skins in Africa and pale skins in Scandinavia, and both would be “fit”.