What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Evolution Mystery
Summarizes recent scientific advances in biology and genetics and, reviewing the theories of Darwin in light of these findings, explores such issues as the distribution of adaptations, rates of evolution, and the genetic code
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 16, 2026
HIS LAST BOOK, CRITIQUING THE NEO-DARWINIST POSITION
Gordon Rattray Taylor (1911-1981) was a British author. His wife Olga wrote in the Foreword to this posthumously published 1983 book, “For over two years Gordon worked steadily on this book, battling all the time against an illness which grew steadily more serious and debilitating. It was a heroic effort, and, when he died in December 1981, the book was complete but unedited.”
He wrote in the Introduction, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which has stood as the one great biological law comparable with the laws of physics for more than a century, is crumbling under attack. Biologists are discovering more and more features which it does not seem able to explain, and are holding meetings at which tempers often run high to discuss problems, some new, others which were discovered decades ago but quietly ignored. If Darwinism fails, this is … more than merely scientific consequence… Darwin’s ideas caused such a furor … [because] they presented the living world as a world of chance, determined by material forces, in place of a world determined by a divine plan. They substituted chance for purpose…
“My purpose … is to examine Darwinism and its modern form, neo-Darwinism, in order to see where we stand. To say that Darwin’s theory is inadequate or incomplete is not to say that we have to retreat to a mystical explanation of the living world. I believe there is a third alternative… I shall suggest that the world is ordered, but that the order springs from an inner necessity. Only a restricted number of paths of future development are open---that is, chance is restricted---and as time passes, the number of possibilities becomes fewer… the nearer we get to our destination, the more limited the possible outcomes.
“On one point we must be clear before we start. The fact that an evolutionary process occurred is not in doubt. It is only the mechanism which brought it about which is being questioned. Any rational man … must be convinced that life-forms started as very simple cells… which branched into many variants, over an extremely long period of time. I have to say this in view of the attacks of those known as Creationists… Darwin proposed to explain these changes by two main propositions: first, that variations occurred by chance, second, that the more advantageous form would be favored; competition would eliminate the less efficient… Now, there can be no doubt that selection occurs… Nevertheless, there are quite a number of phenomena … which natural selection seems unable to account for. Is there some other principle at work alongside natural selection? If so, what? Piling up cases where selection DOES work will never prove that it is the unique agency in evolution… This is one of the mysteries I shall explore, but much more serious for Darwinism … is the proposition that variation depends entirely on chance… it is very difficult to believe that a complex structure like an eye… came about by chance… Darwin himself was flummoxed by this.” (Pg. 1-4)
He reports, “The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows… in 1967… a handful of mathematicians and biologists… decided to organize a conference, which was called ‘Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.’ ... Sir Peter Medawar [said in] opening the meeting, ‘The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about … neo-Darwinian theory.’ … Sir Karl Popper… has declared that Darwinism is not a scientific theory at all.” (Pg. 4)
He observes, “Since evolution does occur and has occurred, something more than chance mutation must be involved… But plenty of other objections to Darwinism can be and have been raised. In studying evolution, many scientists … have felt forced to accept the existence of some directive force and have felt it impossible to assign the many seemingly purposeful developments to chance. Here I will quote only one… Richard Goldschmidt… More recently… another issue has become the focus of attention, namely whether evolution took place gradually as Darwin insisted or by sudden leaps or steps…. The issue was raised again in 1972… [by] Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould… In addition to macro-evolution and micro-evolution, there is a third long-standing controversy, known as Lamarckism… It proposes that alterations produced by circumstances… can become inherited…. Finally there is the problem of behavior… how does behavior evolve? Why are there such curious differences in the behavior of closely related species, and do they matter?… Many biologists, while ready to accept that neo-Darwinism explains minor changes in structure… are skeptical of its ability to explain those sweeping changes of plan such as the rise of terrestrial creatures from fishes...” (Pg. 5-10)
He argues, “If Darwin plunged us into a purposeless world of chance it was because he was in reaction from a philosophical and theological position … which … denied man’s freedoms to modify his own future. But is an evolution by chance the only alternative to one based on a divine plan? … [I] will show that it is not.” (Pg. 15)
He summarizes, “the case for Darwin’s theory has never been conclusive. What has thrown it into serious doubt… is the amazing advances in molecular biology during the past 25 years… It is turning out that genes … do not just sit there waiting for a mutation to occur, but are embedded in complex regulatory systems…. While Darwin’s theory is shuddering under attack… the theory of Lamarck is regaining a degree of credibility.” (Pg. 34-35)
He observes, “we see that in each of the major steps there is an almost complete absence of fossils capable of supporting the claim that the new forms arose by the gradual accumulation of minute changes. Eggs are first found fully developed; so are feathers. Fossils of early birds are ‘extremely rare.’ … The origin of insects is a complete mystery. The position as regards the flowering plants is no better.” (Pg. 77-78)
He argues, “we have seen at least a dozen areas where the theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or definitely wrong… (1) The suddenness with which major changes in pattern occurred… (2) The suddenness with which new forms ‘radiated’ into numerous variants. (3) the suddenness of many extinctions… (4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations… (5) The variations in the speed at which evolution occurred. (6) The fact that … no new phyla have appeared, and no classes or orders… (7) The occurrence of parallel and convergent evolution, in which similar structures evolve in quite different circumstances. (8) The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). (9) The occurrence of organs before they are needed (pre-adaptation). (10) The occurrence of ‘overshoot’ or evolutionary ‘momentum.’ (11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration), (12) the failure of some organisms to evolve at all.” (Pg. 137-138)
He states, “There seems no need to doubt the basic premise that straightforward modifications, such as the length of a bird’s beak… have been fostered by selection operating on a genetic change of some kind… Second, some modifications are probably neutral, neither selected for or against…. Third, I cannot doubt that trends become established because they are of benefit initially and then continue far past the optimum… The mechanism behind such ‘overshoot’ is not understood.” (Pg. 161-162)
He asks, “This brings us to the real, brain-busting problem: how can selection favor a mechanism which will only show benefits in the future, if at all?… there is a fundamental contradiction between the claim that loss of the power of recombination increases the likelihood of a species becoming extinct and the claim that it improves the species’ chance of survival when circumstances are changing. This contradiction remains largely unresolved.” (Pg. 197)
He points out, “the plain fact is that the genetic mechanism shows not the slightest sign of being able to convey specific behavior patterns. What it does is manufacture proteins…. If in fact behavior is heritable, what are the units of behavior which are passed on[?]… No one has suggested an answer.” (Pg. 221)
He asserts, “perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences or organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. Naturally many will have escaped fossilization or have been subsequently destroyed, but surely one or two should survive?” (Pg. 230)
He suggests, “the universality of self-assembly need not be pressed. The point which is relevant here… is that the forms we see in the course of evolution are what they are not only because of environmental constraints but also because of built-in necessity… if Lancelot Law Whyte is right, no mutation is entirely due to chance: only those which meet the internal demands of the genome can emerge to be selected by Darwinian processes.” (Pg. 239-240)
He concludes, “Progress has been prevented by the rigid dogmatism of the Neo-Darwinists… It is unfortunate that the Creationists are exploiting this new atmosphere… this naturally drives the biologists into defensive attitudes and discourages them from making any admissions. Evolutionists have been blinkered by a too narrowly materialist and reductionist approach to their problems. [But] in the world as a whole, there is a growing recognition that life is more complex, even more mysterious, than we have supposed. The probability that there are forces at work in the universe of which we have as yet scarcely an inkling is not too bizarre to entertain. This is a step towards the freeing of the human mind which is pregnant with promise.” (Pg. 245-246)
This book will be of keen interest to those seeking non-Creationist critiques of standard evolutionary theory.
Gordon Rattray Taylor (1911-1981) was a British author. His wife Olga wrote in the Foreword to this posthumously published 1983 book, “For over two years Gordon worked steadily on this book, battling all the time against an illness which grew steadily more serious and debilitating. It was a heroic effort, and, when he died in December 1981, the book was complete but unedited.”
He wrote in the Introduction, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which has stood as the one great biological law comparable with the laws of physics for more than a century, is crumbling under attack. Biologists are discovering more and more features which it does not seem able to explain, and are holding meetings at which tempers often run high to discuss problems, some new, others which were discovered decades ago but quietly ignored. If Darwinism fails, this is … more than merely scientific consequence… Darwin’s ideas caused such a furor … [because] they presented the living world as a world of chance, determined by material forces, in place of a world determined by a divine plan. They substituted chance for purpose…
“My purpose … is to examine Darwinism and its modern form, neo-Darwinism, in order to see where we stand. To say that Darwin’s theory is inadequate or incomplete is not to say that we have to retreat to a mystical explanation of the living world. I believe there is a third alternative… I shall suggest that the world is ordered, but that the order springs from an inner necessity. Only a restricted number of paths of future development are open---that is, chance is restricted---and as time passes, the number of possibilities becomes fewer… the nearer we get to our destination, the more limited the possible outcomes.
“On one point we must be clear before we start. The fact that an evolutionary process occurred is not in doubt. It is only the mechanism which brought it about which is being questioned. Any rational man … must be convinced that life-forms started as very simple cells… which branched into many variants, over an extremely long period of time. I have to say this in view of the attacks of those known as Creationists… Darwin proposed to explain these changes by two main propositions: first, that variations occurred by chance, second, that the more advantageous form would be favored; competition would eliminate the less efficient… Now, there can be no doubt that selection occurs… Nevertheless, there are quite a number of phenomena … which natural selection seems unable to account for. Is there some other principle at work alongside natural selection? If so, what? Piling up cases where selection DOES work will never prove that it is the unique agency in evolution… This is one of the mysteries I shall explore, but much more serious for Darwinism … is the proposition that variation depends entirely on chance… it is very difficult to believe that a complex structure like an eye… came about by chance… Darwin himself was flummoxed by this.” (Pg. 1-4)
He reports, “The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows… in 1967… a handful of mathematicians and biologists… decided to organize a conference, which was called ‘Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.’ ... Sir Peter Medawar [said in] opening the meeting, ‘The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about … neo-Darwinian theory.’ … Sir Karl Popper… has declared that Darwinism is not a scientific theory at all.” (Pg. 4)
He observes, “Since evolution does occur and has occurred, something more than chance mutation must be involved… But plenty of other objections to Darwinism can be and have been raised. In studying evolution, many scientists … have felt forced to accept the existence of some directive force and have felt it impossible to assign the many seemingly purposeful developments to chance. Here I will quote only one… Richard Goldschmidt… More recently… another issue has become the focus of attention, namely whether evolution took place gradually as Darwin insisted or by sudden leaps or steps…. The issue was raised again in 1972… [by] Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould… In addition to macro-evolution and micro-evolution, there is a third long-standing controversy, known as Lamarckism… It proposes that alterations produced by circumstances… can become inherited…. Finally there is the problem of behavior… how does behavior evolve? Why are there such curious differences in the behavior of closely related species, and do they matter?… Many biologists, while ready to accept that neo-Darwinism explains minor changes in structure… are skeptical of its ability to explain those sweeping changes of plan such as the rise of terrestrial creatures from fishes...” (Pg. 5-10)
He argues, “If Darwin plunged us into a purposeless world of chance it was because he was in reaction from a philosophical and theological position … which … denied man’s freedoms to modify his own future. But is an evolution by chance the only alternative to one based on a divine plan? … [I] will show that it is not.” (Pg. 15)
He summarizes, “the case for Darwin’s theory has never been conclusive. What has thrown it into serious doubt… is the amazing advances in molecular biology during the past 25 years… It is turning out that genes … do not just sit there waiting for a mutation to occur, but are embedded in complex regulatory systems…. While Darwin’s theory is shuddering under attack… the theory of Lamarck is regaining a degree of credibility.” (Pg. 34-35)
He observes, “we see that in each of the major steps there is an almost complete absence of fossils capable of supporting the claim that the new forms arose by the gradual accumulation of minute changes. Eggs are first found fully developed; so are feathers. Fossils of early birds are ‘extremely rare.’ … The origin of insects is a complete mystery. The position as regards the flowering plants is no better.” (Pg. 77-78)
He argues, “we have seen at least a dozen areas where the theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or definitely wrong… (1) The suddenness with which major changes in pattern occurred… (2) The suddenness with which new forms ‘radiated’ into numerous variants. (3) the suddenness of many extinctions… (4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations… (5) The variations in the speed at which evolution occurred. (6) The fact that … no new phyla have appeared, and no classes or orders… (7) The occurrence of parallel and convergent evolution, in which similar structures evolve in quite different circumstances. (8) The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). (9) The occurrence of organs before they are needed (pre-adaptation). (10) The occurrence of ‘overshoot’ or evolutionary ‘momentum.’ (11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration), (12) the failure of some organisms to evolve at all.” (Pg. 137-138)
He states, “There seems no need to doubt the basic premise that straightforward modifications, such as the length of a bird’s beak… have been fostered by selection operating on a genetic change of some kind… Second, some modifications are probably neutral, neither selected for or against…. Third, I cannot doubt that trends become established because they are of benefit initially and then continue far past the optimum… The mechanism behind such ‘overshoot’ is not understood.” (Pg. 161-162)
He asks, “This brings us to the real, brain-busting problem: how can selection favor a mechanism which will only show benefits in the future, if at all?… there is a fundamental contradiction between the claim that loss of the power of recombination increases the likelihood of a species becoming extinct and the claim that it improves the species’ chance of survival when circumstances are changing. This contradiction remains largely unresolved.” (Pg. 197)
He points out, “the plain fact is that the genetic mechanism shows not the slightest sign of being able to convey specific behavior patterns. What it does is manufacture proteins…. If in fact behavior is heritable, what are the units of behavior which are passed on[?]… No one has suggested an answer.” (Pg. 221)
He asserts, “perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences or organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change. Naturally many will have escaped fossilization or have been subsequently destroyed, but surely one or two should survive?” (Pg. 230)
He suggests, “the universality of self-assembly need not be pressed. The point which is relevant here… is that the forms we see in the course of evolution are what they are not only because of environmental constraints but also because of built-in necessity… if Lancelot Law Whyte is right, no mutation is entirely due to chance: only those which meet the internal demands of the genome can emerge to be selected by Darwinian processes.” (Pg. 239-240)
He concludes, “Progress has been prevented by the rigid dogmatism of the Neo-Darwinists… It is unfortunate that the Creationists are exploiting this new atmosphere… this naturally drives the biologists into defensive attitudes and discourages them from making any admissions. Evolutionists have been blinkered by a too narrowly materialist and reductionist approach to their problems. [But] in the world as a whole, there is a growing recognition that life is more complex, even more mysterious, than we have supposed. The probability that there are forces at work in the universe of which we have as yet scarcely an inkling is not too bizarre to entertain. This is a step towards the freeing of the human mind which is pregnant with promise.” (Pg. 245-246)
This book will be of keen interest to those seeking non-Creationist critiques of standard evolutionary theory.
February 1, 2023
Obliterates the Neo-Darwinian fairy tail myth while still upholding evolution.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews