The book covers the full range of Mayr's mature thinking: the proximate/ultimate distinction, the autonomy of biology, the role of contingency, the structure of evolutionary explanation, and the philosophical status of biological concepts. It is less technical than The Growth of Biological Thought (1982) and more synthetic than Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988).
The book is invoked in the Ernst Mayr simulation as the point from which his framework is extended to artificial intelligence. Mayr did not live to see the transformer architecture, large language models, or the threshold Segal describes in You On AI. But the conceptual architecture articulated in What Makes Biology Unique? is precisely what the AI moment requires: the discipline of distinguishing proximate from ultimate causes, the insistence on historical specificity, the recognition that variation matters more than averages, and the rejection of reductionist extrapolation.
Reviewers have generally treated the book as a valuable summation rather than a new contribution — which is appropriate to its character as a centennial distillation. What it loses in novelty it gains in clarity. The arguments, refined across seven decades, appear in their most economical form.
Mayr worked on the book through his late nineties. Cambridge University Press published it in 2004 as a hardcover of approximately 250 pages. It was his twenty-fifth book. He had been publishing continuously since 1926, a span of seventy-eight years.
Biology is autonomous. Not separate from physics, not contradicting physics, but requiring explanatory frameworks that physics alone does not provide.
Living systems have histories. The specific forms of life are the products of specific unrepeatable sequences of events, not the necessary consequences of general laws.
Populations, not types. Variation within populations is the fundamental biological reality; the type is a statistical abstraction.
Proximate and ultimate explanations are different. How something works and why it exists are different questions, requiring different methods, with different standards of satisfaction.
Contingency matters. The role of chance in shaping evolutionary outcomes cannot be eliminated by any amount of mechanistic explanation.