Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Douglas Perry, A New Perspective on Human Evolution, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

A New Perspective reconsiderar ciertas tensiones percibidas
entre los actuales conceptos en biología
on Human evolucionaría y ciertas declaraciones de
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Se presenta un resumen de
Evolution la taxonomía y la construcción del árbol
filogenético con especial énfasis en la
cladística, una metodología no disponible
en el tiempo de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá y hasta
DOUGLAS PERRY
ahora no mencionada en la publicaciones
Bahá’ís relacionadas con la evolución.
Abstract El artículo concluye con ejemplos de
This paper reviews past Bahá’í scholar- cómo cladogramas podrían ayudar en la
ship on evolution, identifies a gap in this conceptualización de algunas declaraciones
scholarship in light of current evolutionary de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá relacionadas con la
biology, and uses cladistics—a modern evolución, (por ejemplo, Su declaración
approach to biological classification—to que “el hombre no es animal”). En el
reconsider certain perceived tensions be- uso de esta metodología, la intención del
tween current concepts in evolutionary autor no es reinterpretar la declaración
biology and certain statements of ‘Abdu’l- de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, tampoco “probar” una
Bahá. A summary of taxonomy and phy- interpretación particular relacionada, sino,
logenetic tree construction is given, with traer conceptos modernos de la biología
special emphasis placed on cladistics, a evolucionaría al discurso Bahá’í sobre la
methodology not available in ‘Abdu’l- evolución.
Bahá’s day, and heretofore not mentioned
in Bahá’í-authored publications related to Résumé
evolution. This paper concludes with ex- Dans le présent article, l’auteur passe en
amples of how cladograms may aid in con- revue les études bahá’íes sur l’évolution, y
ceptualizing some of the evolution-related relève une lacune à la lumière de la biologie
statements of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, (for example, évolutive actuelle et utilise la cladistique –
His statement that “man is not an animal”). une approche moderne de la classification
In using this approach, the intention of the biologique – pour réexaminer certaines
author is not to re-interpret ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s divergences perçues entre des concepts
statements, nor to “prove” any particular actuels de la biologie évolutive et certaines
interpretation thereof, but rather to bring déclarations de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Il présente
modern concepts of evolutionary biology une synthèse de la taxonomie et de la
into Bahá’í discourse on evolution. construction d’arbres phylogénétiques,
en accordant une attention particulière
Resumen à la cladistique, une méthodologie qui
Este artículo examina la pasada erudición n’existait pas à l’époque de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Bahá’í sobre la evolución, identifica una et qui n’a pas été mentionnée jusqu’à
brecha entre esta erudición a la luz de la présent dans les publications bahá’íes
actual biología evolucionaría, y utiliza relatives à l’évolution. L’article se termine
la cladística-una metodología moderna par des exemples illustrant comment
para la clasificación biológica-para les cladogrammes pourraient aider à
8 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

conceptualiser certaines déclarations de ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on the
‘Abdu’l-Bahá sur l’évolution (par exemple, topic of evolution have been the sub-
sa déclaration selon laquelle « l’homme ject of some scrutiny—mostly by
n’est pas un animal »). En utilisant cette Bahá’ís themselves, who have tended
approche, l’auteur n’a pas l’intention de to either read these as an endorsement
réinterpréter les déclarations de ‘Abdu’l-
of a position that seems to be at odds
Bahá, ni de « prouver » une interprétation
with established scientific consensus,
particulière de celles-ci, mais plutôt
d’introduire des concepts modernes de la
or as requiring careful interpretation
biologie évolutive dans le discours bahá’í in order to show that they are, in fact,
sur l’évolution. compatible with that consensus. In this
paper, I offer a different approach by
drawing on relatively recent develop-
I ments in the methods used within evo-
lutionary biology itself. When viewed
Between 1904 and 1905, ‘Abdu’l- through the lens of cladistics, the ap-
Bahá gave a series of table talks on a parent tension between ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
number of subjects, published in 1908 statements and scientific truth reveals
as Some Answered Questions. From itself to be more a matter of perspec-
1910 to 1913, He traveled to Europe tive than a fundamental disjuncture in
and North America, and gave many need of reconciliation.
public talks on a wide range of is-
sues. Again, many of these addresses S C
were collected and published as The
Promulgation of Universal Peace. One P S
subject that He addressed in a number
of these talks was human evolution. In On the subject of evolution, much has
these talks, He challenged some of the been written by Bahá’í scholars over
notions that were current at the time, the years.
most notably that because man1 had In The Purpose of Physical Reality,
descended directly from an ancestor of John S. Hatcher asserts that “the Bahá’í
other primates, the human being was, teachings reject the views of both
therefore, merely an animal like any the creationists and the evolutionists
other (Haeckel 6). ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states as their theories are commonly
that man holds a distinct station in the presented.” Creation as a whole is eter-
chain of life, and that this distinction nal, and evolution (cosmological, geo-
is spiritual rather than merely physical logical, and biological) is the unfolding
(Promulgation 262). of that creation (48–52). Further, in
Close Connections, Hatcher deduces
from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s comments that
1 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá uses this term, as the transformation of human evolution
others did at the time, to indicate humanity
“occurs solely within a species or state,
in general.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 9

even though these stages of transfor- complexity—implying the action of
mation may be radically different in an invisible force. Moreover, this force
appearance” (122). must possess the properties of life itself,
Anjam Khursheed, in Science and including the higher consciousness of
Religion: Towards the Restoration of humans. From this, Hatcher concludes
an Ancient Harmony, asserts that the that this force must be divine.
Bahá’í writings affirm evolution, but Following the thought of this earlier
that this evolution is divinely directed article, Hatcher held neo-Darwinian
and not the outcome of blind chance theory to be based on the complete
(88–92). randomness of both mutations and
In an article published in the Journal natural selection (a position no longer
of Bahá’í Studies, Craig Loehle presents held in modern evolutionary biolo-
the view that humans did not evolve ac- gy).2 Resting on this assumption of
cidentally, but according to God’s pur- total randomness, Hatcher attests that
pose, as “the unfolding of God’s Plan” neo-Darwinian theory is incapable of
(51). However, this planned unfolding explaining the “complexification” of
is not to be perceived in a Creationist evolution (Epilogue). As in his article
sense as literally a step-by-step inter- of fifteen years prior, he argues for the
vention by God, but rather as a gradual existence of an “evolutionary force,”
actualization of potentialities mediated divine in origin.
by an evolutionary process according Such a position verges on “intelli-
to natural law. He also develops the gent design,” the theistic position that
concept of human beings as a “special life holds evidence of purposeful cre-
creation” (i.e., transcending other life ation that cannot be based on chance
forms) and yet emerging with other life alone. However, as noted, Hatcher’s
forms through biological evolution. fundamental premise, that of the
William S. Hatcher offers a cogent complete randomness of both muta-
argument for the increased “com- tion and natural selection, is disputed
plexification” of evolution as proof by current research in evolutionary
of the existence of God (“A Scientific
Proof”). He starts with an analogy. 2 Modern evolutionary biology as-
The directedness of a falling object, serts that mutations, broadly speaking, are
which theoretically is free to move in not entirely random in the statistical sense,
any random direction, but which only but are shaped by adjacent probabilities—
moves in one direction—down—of- for example, the location of the mutating
fers proof that there is an “invisible base pair in a nucleotide sequence. As a
force”—gravity—acting on the object. rough analogy, the outcome of the role of
Similarly, evolution is generated by the a die is not completely random in the sta-
random actions of mutation and nat- tistical sense, but is limited or shaped by
ural selection, yet it, too, only moves the number of sides of the die. This has
in one “direction”—towards greater important implications for the apparent di-
rectionality of evolution.
10 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

biology (Martincorena and Luscombe; that gathered the main statements of
Gregory, “Understanding Natural ‘Abdu’l-Bahá regarding evolution,
Selection”). and analyzed them in light of general
In his 1993 book, The Challenge evolutionary concepts. They conclud-
of Bahá’u’lláh, Gary Matthews seeks ed that, although humans are biologi-
to reconcile the apparent contradic- cally part of evolution, “man is much
tion between biological human evo- more than an animal,” being endowed
lution (as it was then understood) with a spiritual reality not shared with
and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on animals.
the uniqueness of the human station In a conference paper published in
by arguing that the contradiction is Lights of Irfán, Ian Kluge makes no
semantic: the emergence of the soul attempt to reconcile ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
constitutes a new “species” in a gener- statements on evolution with current
al, not biological, sense. He adds that scientific thought; on the contrary, he
further research “may someday settle holds that they should be accepted as
this issue” (109). stated, while waiting for scientific re-
Paul Lample, the compiler of search and thinking to catch up. This
Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings on Spiritual position, however, precludes any nu-
Reality, states that the Bahá’í teachings anced interpretation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
support the scientific concept of statements.
evolution while rejecting that evolution In his master’s thesis, Salman
operates solely by chance; evolution is Oskooi takes the position that ‘Abdu’l-
essentially purposeful (101). He also Bahá’s statements on evolution must
asserts that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements be taken simply at face value, and that,
regarding the uniqueness of the hu- since they are at odds with current
man station should not be interpreted evolutionary science, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
to mean that humans emerged through comments are simply wrong. Oskooi
a separate, parallel evolutionary does assert the infallibility of ‘Abdu’l-
pathway. Bahá on spiritual matters, but claims
In 2001, Keven Brown and Eberhard that this infallibility does not extend to
von Kitzing produced a monograph, scientific or other subjects. However,
Evolution and Bahá’í Belief, that sys- Oskooi’s position is founded on a let-
tematically surveys the philosophical ter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi
(as opposed to strictly scientific) con- regarding his own infallibility as be-
cepts of evolution, both in Western (i.e., ing confined to matters relating to the
European) and Eastern (i.e., Islamic) tra- Cause, which Oskooi extends to apply
ditions leading up to, and current with, to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as well. In contradic-
the time when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá made His tion to this position, a letter on behalf
major comments related to evolution. of the Universal House of Justice to an
In 2003, Courosh Mehanian and individual believer states that this lim-
Stephen Friberg published an article itation of infallibility does not apply
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 11

to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (Universal House of modern evolutionary biology into dia-
Justice, Messages 545–46). logue with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements
In 2023, Bryan Donaldson pub- on evolution. There are many ways to
lished a monograph, On the Originality accomplish this. I choose to approach
of Species, which propounds that this subject through the path of phy-
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statement, “man is not logenetics and cladistics, which have
animal” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation been foundational to evolutionary bi-
359) should be taken as literally true in ology since the 1960s (Henning), and
a biological sense, and proposes that have since been well substantiated by
this can be explained by a “parallel research as explained further in this
evolution” by which humans evolved paper.
separately from animals (including pri- In taking this new approach, my in-
mates). Criticism of this position can tention is not to re-interpret the state-
be found elsewhere (Perry). ments of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, nor to “prove”
Bahman Nadimi’s article “Bahá’í any particular interpretation of His
View on Biological Evolution” posits statements, but rather to demonstrate
that the evolution of humans did not how incorporating current evolution-
start at the inception of life on Earth ary science enriches the discourse on
but rather began with some unknown, this subject, which is at the nexus of
specialized biological structure at a any discussion of one of the central
later stage, suggesting that humans tenets of the Bahá’í Faith, that of the
and animals evolved on completely harmony between science and religion.
separate paths. There is no scientific
evidence for this conjecture. P

T G B ’ S The premises of this paper are derived
E from the overarching themes expound-
ed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His science- and
For all the valuable perspectives found evolution-related talks, as identified by
in this prior scholarship, these contri- Friberg and Mehanian. These premises
butions all come from the perspective are:
of the philosophy of evolution, not 1. In terms of biological evo-
the science of evolutionary biology. lution, humans have progressive-
Moreover, this discussion has been ly evolved from a simpler form
confined to Darwinian and neo-Dar- (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered
winian concepts, which are rooted in Questions 210). This is consistent
the nineteenth and twentieth centu- with current evolutionary theory.
ries, and limited by the knowledge 2. The essential nature of hu-
and understanding of those times. As mans has always existed in poten-
we are now well into the twenty-first tiality, regardless of the outward
century, the time has come to bring organismic form at any point of
12 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

evolution (223). This declaration Some of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s comments
challenges the very concept, im- on evolution have been seen as enig-
plicit in the mainstream scientific matic, initiating attempts—as the ear-
discourse since Darwin, that what lier literature review shows—at resolu-
it means to be human can be de- tion. For example, I draw the reader’s
scribed in strictly taxonomic (i.e. attention to one statement by ‘Abdu’l-
biological classification) terms. Bahá that seems so directly literal in
3. The feature that distinguishes meaning that some feel challenged to
humans from animals is not the understand it in light of evolutionary
biological organism, but the hu- theory. Specifically:
man spirit, also referred to as the
rational soul (241). This does not The lost link of Darwinian theory
deny that genus Homo can prop- is itself a proof that man is not an
erly be viewed as a taxon3 in tribe animal. How is it possible to have
Hominini, family Hominidae, and all the links present and that im-
order Primates, but it challenges portant link absent? Its absence is
the notion that this classification an indication that man has never
fully explains what a human being been an animal. It will never be
is. In other words, the human is, found. (Promulgation 355; em-
but not simply, a primate. phasis added)

AD D In his book, On the Originality
of Species, Bryan Donaldson holds
Within the Bahá’í community at large, the position that this statement must
the questions and discussions regard- be taken in its most literal sense, and
ing human evolution are not settled, therefore posits that human evolution
nor must they be, nor even should they was parallel to, not colinear with, pri-
be. The intersections of science and re- mate evolution. This goes against over-
ligion will always be dynamic because whelming scientific evidence (White et
they are subject to both changes in al.), and, although Donaldson makes a
scientific theory and in human under- valiant effort to reinterpret these find-
standing of scripture; in other words, ings, his effort ultimately fails not only
the questions and discussions unfold as on evidence but on first principles: the
our comprehension of reality evolves. concept that humans have always been
human throughout evolutionary history
3 Taxon (plural taxa) is a general by reason of latent potential cannot be
term for any group of organisms that bi- explained by parallel evolution because
ologists classify together based on shared the problem of instantiation—when
characteristics such as types of locomotion and how humans became human—re-
or reproduction. Species, genera, families, mains. The theory of parallel human
and higher classifications are all examples evolution merely pushes the problem
of taxa.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 13

of instantiation back to an earlier, and W U
entirely speculative, time in evolution- E R
ary history (Perry).
For any ongoing discussion on the There are several ways of viewing
subject of human evolution, the fol- evolution, all of which are scientifical-
lowing excerpt from a letter written ly valid within the limits of the scope
on behalf of the Universal House of and quality of the underlying data they
Justice can be regarded as a grounding draw from and the inherent restrictions
statement: of the analytic methods on which they
are based. It is important to understand
The Bahá’í view of evolution that these different presentations of
is more complex and nuanced evolutionary data are not contradic-
than that put forward today by tory; rather, they view the same phe-
those who present evolution and nomena from different perspectives,
creation in dichotomous terms. and, therefore, are complementary.
Evolution may be understood as With the exception of the naturalistic
the means set in motion by God tree model commonly used in popular
through which life changes and culture, all methods mentioned in this
unfolds. A Bahá’í can strive to paper are fully accepted within the sci-
reconcile contemporary scientific entific community. Different methods
views with the published state- are chosen for varied reasons. The fact
ments of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which that each of these is simply a distinct
need not be understood to imply a perspective that does not contradict
kind of parallel evolution. Rather, other perspectives is evidenced by oc-
‘Abdu’l-Bahá has explained that casional variations in the terminology
human life came into existence by which they are invoked in the liter-
when the appropriate conditions ature. A dendrogram, for example, may
were established. (5 July 2010) be referred to as a phylogenetic tree
because it really is a phylogenetic tree
In the spirit of this statement, I viewed from a different perspective.
seek to take a holistic approach to- While variable terminology can occa-
wards human evolution by viewing it sionally be problematic for the outside
through a different lens (as will be ex- inquirer, it does not interfere with a
plained in this article) than has here- crucial point of this paper, which is
tofore been used in Bahá’í discussions that the findings of modern evolu-
of evolution, one that may help us see tionary biology have a reciprocity and
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s explanations as har- complementarity with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
monious with mainstream scientific statements on evolution.
consensus. What follows, then, is a brief discus-
sion of phylogenetics—the broad disci-
pline concerned with the evolutionary
14 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

relationships between organisms—in biology (Losos et al.).
order to frame an exploration of two A phylogenetic tree (figure 1) is the
distinct ways of presenting those rela- diagrammatic representation of these
tionships. The technical details in this relationships. By common convention,
section are given to provide context for the beginning of the tree represents
the overall point that two equally valid the last common universal ancestor
and accurate ways of looking at evolu- (LUCA) for all subsequent forms of
tion can each highlight aspects of this life. Consistent with its descriptive
phenomenon that the other obscures. designation, a phylogenetic tree arbor-
izes according to divergent evolution,
P with the point of divergence (called the
node) being the most recent common
The discipline of phylogenetics (from ancestor (MRCA). The tree in figure 1,
the Greek phylon for “race” or “tribe” for instance, depicts the three taxonom-
and geneia for “origin”) is the study ic domains (a domain being the high-
of the evolutionary relationships that est level category of classification of
form the basis of taxonomic4 classifi- life): Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota
cation (Haque). First emerging in the (or Eukarya). Each domain contains
mid-twentieth century, phylogenetics a number of kingdoms—the domain
now forms the core of evolutionary Eukaryota, for instance, contains the
kingdoms Protista (a term now being
4 Taxonomy (from the Greek taxis used less formally), Fungi, Plantae, and
for “order” and nomos for “law”) is the Animalia.
discipline of naming life forms based on While the first systematic efforts at
evolutionary relationships. The naming of taxonomy, beginning with Linneus, re-
organisms is as old as language itself, but lied on visual appraisal of shared and
the systematization of biological naming different characteristics— bats and
began with Carl Linnaeus in the eighteenth birds, for example, both have wings
century. Taxonomic hierarchies are based
with homologous bone structures, but
on the range of evolutionary commonali-
have completely different modes of
ties (i.e. biological characteristics), with
species being the unit with the greatest
reproduction, and so we conclude that
specificity for these characteristics. The bats are flying mammals rather than
progression from most specific (the least birds—modern phylogenetics has a
commonality) to most general (the greatest wider range of ways to assess how
commonality) is species → genus → fami- organisms are related. In addition to
ly → order → class → phylum → kingdom phenetic (i.e., morphological) data
→ domain. This hierarchical system makes (Panchen 132–68)—physical traits such
taxonomy more than “a glorified form of as limbs, gills, and feathers—a phylo-
filing”; the taxonomic classification of an genetic tree can be generated using ge-
organism expresses our current under- nomic (i.e. molecular) data (Fuellen)—
standing (or theory) about its relationship DNA, RNA, and protein sequence
to all other life (Gould 98).
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 15

homologies; behavioral data (MacLean Before proceeding, it is worth not-
et al.)—migration, mating, etc.; and ing that the contention that a number
statistical analysis (Gavryushkina et of perspectives on evolutionary rela-
al.)—Bayesian inference, maximum tionships are equally valid does not
likelihood. The phylogenetic tree is mean that any method of visualizing
a true and accurate representation those relationships is valid. For ex-
of currently available scientific data ample, in contrast to phylogenetic
bearing on evolutionary relationships. trees, and to cladograms that we will
However, it is only a qualitative (or at review later, the common image of a
best semi-quantitative) representation, naturalistic tree to represent evolution
and new data can sometimes lead to is misleading in important respects
changes in the tree.5 (figure 2). The innate appeal of using

Figure 1. Phylogenetic Tree of Life (after https://www.greennature.ca/tree-of-life/)

5 For example, it was long disput-
a naturalistic tree to describe evolution
ed whether the giant panda is most close- is understandable. The “tree of life”
ly related to raccoons or bears, due to its concept predates Darwin, and a con-
sharing morphological characteristics with temporary of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel,
both. Only once genomic data was avail- used a naturalistic tree to describe evo-
able was it determined that the giant panda lution as it was then understood. It has
is, in fact, a true bear. Interestingly, genom- remained a popular image ever since,
ic data also showed that the red panda was and is what is commonly envisioned
not in fact a close relative of the giant pan- when thinking of evolution. However,
da, despite their geographical proximity this representation is not used in the
and several shared morphological features scientific community. The naturalistic
(O’Brien et al.).
16 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

tree image obscures and misrepresents For one, the trunk’s ramification into
actual evolutionary features and rela- thinner and thinner branches—in the
tionships in ways that a true phyloge- manner of a natural tree—falsely im-
netic tree does not. For example, in fig- plies some kind of diminution, as of
ure 2, the placement of Protista at the biological information or complexity,
roots of the tree is problematic. To the when in fact the opposite is true. It also
layperson, this placement would seem falsely implies derivation, as if a later
to suggest that all other life evolved form of life is merely derived from an
from Protista, when in actuality all earlier form, when in fact new forms of
modern members of Protista share a life can emerge with novel properties.
common ancestor (LUCA) with the Finally, the naturalistic tree shown in
rest of living organisms. The figure figure 2 obscures the true evolutionary
gives no position for LUCA, but if it pathways of, and relationships be-
did, it would have to be at some point tween, taxa.
of the thick trunk—which would fur- The use of a naturalistic tree to pres-
ther confuse the layperson, for whom ent scientific findings is a good exam-
the tree image intuitively suggests a ple of how the way we represent data
linear progression from roots to trunk can profoundly influence—and in this
to branches. The use of a literal tree case, impair—what we can perceive
image presents further difficulties. about the data.

Figure 2. Evolution depicted as a naturalistic tree
(after https://earthsky.org/earth/new-tree-of-life-doesnt-look-as-youd-imagine/)
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 17

D the most recent common ancestor of
agnathans (jawless vertebrates) and
Returning to actual scientific practice, Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates)
phylogenetic trees can be represented lived before the most recent common
in diagrammatic form as dendrograms ancestor of marsupial and placental
to visualize evolutionary relationships mammals. The vertical axis loosely
more easily. In figure 3, taxa belonging represents evolutionary “distance.”
to the phylum Chordata are mapped Thus, marsupial and placental mam-
according to their evolutionary rela- mals are more closely related to each
tionships using data, both quantitative other than either is to frogs.
(genomic information, carbon dating
to determine the age of fossils, etc.) T P E
and qualitative (observed phenetic “P ”
similarities and differences, etc.). The
horizontal axis loosely represents evo- Dendrograms, if constructed faithful-
lutionary time, meaning that nodes fur- ly to a sound underlying data set, are
ther towards the left of the dendrogram one valid way of visualizing evolu-
represent a branching-off between tionary relationships, and are useful
lineages that occurred earlier in time for a number of purposes. If they are
than those further to the right. Thus, the only lens we use for this purpose,

Figure 3. Simple evolutionary dendrogram
(after https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/how-to-read-a-dendrogram.html)
18 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

however, we may draw inferences as a byproduct of mindless adaptation.
from the underlying data that a differ- However, there is no scientific basis for
ent visualization would not lead us to, this tenet. It is what Richard DeWitt
or fail to draw inferences that another refers to as a philosophical/conceptual
(different but equally valid) visualiza- “fact” as opposed to an empirical fact;
tion might suggest. Consider one of the former are commonly mistaken for
the recurring themes in the statements the latter even by scientists (31–35).
of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: the directionality Because of this position, teleolo-
and hierarchy of evolution from sim- gy and progress are terms effectively
pler to more complex organisms, from banned from the literature in evolu-
“lower” to “higher” forms of life, and tionary biology (Kadykalo). Yet it is
especially the station of human beings undeniable that life has evolved from
in the order of life; see, for example, simplicity to higher and higher orders
“Evolution and the Existence of Man” of complexity in both functionality and
(Some Answered Questions 220–27). capacity (Lipps et al.). This progres-
This is contrary to the received opinion sive complexity is, of course, captured
of most evolutionary biologists now in the underlying data upon which evo-
active in the field. Thus, any explora- lutionary trees are based; however, the
tion of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on way these data are presented minimiz-
evolution must address this issue. es or even obscures this phenomenon.
Although scientifically correct and For example, dendrograms generally
useful for charting evolutionary path- only show evolutionary relationships;
ways, dendrograms, like most evolu- information about organismal form
tionary tree models, tend to obscure one and function is entirely missing. A
important aspect of evolution: the pro- dendrogram is, of course, not incorrect
gressive emergence of higher orders of because of this omission; it simply fo-
life, and the evolutionary relationships cuses on only one aspect of evolution.
based on this emergence. The current A mathematical equivalent of this
dogma holds that, because much (but operation is to plot the 1-dimensional
not all) evolution occurs by chance scalar of a 3-dimensional vector. The
mutation and natural selection, it must scalar can only reflect one aspect of the
be purposeless, and, therefore, direc- vector, thereby concealing the deeper,
tionless. By extension of this position, richer information of the vector itself.
a popular tenet is that biological evolu- In a comparable manner, this dendro-
tion does not advance, it merely chang- gram shows no increasing complexity;
es.6 Increasing biological complexity, indeed, no “progress” at all.
though not denied, is simply dismissed Every map or model, of course,
must simplify the reality that it seeks
6 I personally have heard a pro- to explain. A political map of the
fessor of evolutionary biology proclaim, globe omits topographical features; if
“Humans are no more advanced than amoe- we want to know where the high and
bas, they just occupy different niches.”
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 19

low points of the earth are found, we called synapomorphies, a term that we
need a topographical map. This paper will return to later).
therefore now turns to a different kind Though traditionally based on phe-
of “map” of evolutionary relationships: netics (observable similarities), which
modern cladistics, which can be used is a relatively simple methodology, the
to visualize the statements of ‘Abdu’l- apparent evolutionary relationships
Bahá regarding biological hierarchy, identified by cladistics can be verified
and thus help to reconcile (though with molecular data (Mavrodiev and
not re-interpret) His statements with a Madorsky), fossil records (Cracraft),
modern scientific perspective. ethological studies (Fentress), and by
advanced statistical (Huelsenbeck,
C Ronquist, et al.) and computational
(Brooks et al.) methods. Data acquired
To bring twenty-first century evolu- by separate, complementary methods
tionary biology into dialogue with allow clades to be defined with increas-
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on evolu- ing rigor (Faith and Cranston).
tion, we turn to the field of cladistics, As with all scientific methodolo-
which did not exist in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s gies, cladistics has strengths and weak-
day. The term was coined in the 1950s nesses. While these are summarized
and cladistics was established as a sub- in Appendix A, for our purposes one
discipline of biology by the 1960s. particular strength stands out: cladis-
Cladistics offers a different way tics is particularly good at visualizing
of viewing evolution (Williams and evolutionary history in terms of phe-
Ebach), and can be described as a netics and evolutionary development
method of systematic classification (Harrison). In other words, it helps
within phylogenetics. It operates by us identify when something new has
arranging taxa into groups, called appeared through the processes of
clades. A clade consists of all taxa that evolution.
share particular features in common,
to the exclusion of all other taxa. For C
example, Gnathostomes are jawed
fish (and their descendants) that di- Cladograms are visual representations
verged from Agnatha, which are jaw- of cladistics. They are diagrams that
less chordates such as lampreys. All map clades, primarily on evolutionary
subsequently evolved creatures with morphogenesis.
jaws, including all tetrapods (verte- The diagrammatic structure of the
brates with four limbs), are grouped cladogram represents both the evo-
into the clade Gnathostomata, while lutionary lineage and relatedness of
Agnatha are excluded from this clade. taxa (figure 4). The “root” represents
(The shared features that constitute the most recent common ancestor for
clades—jaws in this example—are all the taxa included in a particular
20 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

cladogram. As we follow the diagram evolutionary relationships of the in-
up from the root, we find “internal group (Huelsenbeck, Bollback, et al.).
nodes”—bifurcations that represent To see how cladograms can visual-
speciation events and common an- ize evolutionary relationships, consid-
cestors for subsequent (i.e. above the er figure 5. Here, the root is the most
node) divergent evolutionary lines. recent common ancestor for all the taxa
Taxa—which can represent individual shown in the figure, from lampreys
species or larger taxonomic groups (i.e., (Petromyzon) to lizards (Lacertillia).
clades)—are represented by “terminal Internal nodes indicate the last com-
nodes” (such as the letters A through F mon ancestor for subgroups of taxa; for
in figure 4). The evolutionary lineage example, the rightmost internal node
of a given taxon is thus represented by represents the last common ancestor
the straight lines connecting a terminal for lizards and birds (Aves). The taxa
node back to the root. Taxa sharing the (terminal nodes) in this diagram are all
same most recent common ancestor are clades representing many species. This
identified as sister taxa. An outgroup cladogram allows us to see that birds
is a species or group of species that is are more closely related to lizards than
closely related to, but not part of, the to lampreys. The validity of any clado-
other taxa being studied (the ingroup). gram to depict these relationships is, of
The function of the outgroup is to serve course, dependent on the data used to
as a reference point for determining the construct the cladogram.

Figure 4. Basic cladogram structure
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 21

Before proceeding further, it is import- and divergent nodes are still the same.
ant to take in some cautionary consid- What’s important to note here is that
erations for using cladograms as repre- the long “main line” of the cladogram
sentational tools of evolution (Gregory, represents the direct evolutionary path
“Understanding Evolutionary Trees”). for whichever particular taxon is found
First, it is most important to understand at the rightmost terminal node. It is
cladogram topology. Any internal node quite natural for the viewer to consider
can be rotated 180° without changing this node, and its taxon, the ultimate
the topology of the cladogram. For “destination” and focus of the clado-
example, in Figure 6, the cladogram gram. However, because nodes can be
on the left (figure 6A) is equivalent to rotated about their vertical axis without
the cladogram on the right (figure 6B). changing the topology of the clado-
Visually, the internal node for sister taxa gram, there is no singular main line;
E and F (EF) and taxon D, which we the choice of which taxon is situated
will call clade D(EF), has been rotated on the main line is made by whoever
180° about its vertical axis. The left- creates the cladogram. The cladogram
to-right order of the taxa was changed can be rearranged such that any of the
from A-B-C-D-E-F (figure 6A) to included taxa can be the terminus of
A-B-C-F-E-D (figure 6B). This gives the main line. This is demonstrated in
the appearance that the evolutionary figure 6, where taxon F is the terminus
relationships of the taxa have changed, of the main line in figure 6A, and taxon
but they have not: when traced in the D is the terminus of the main line in
cladogram, the evolutionary pathways figure 6B.

Figure 5. Simple cladogram of vertebrates
(after https://biologydictionary.net/cladogram/)
22 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

This is not an inherent weakness is an immutable backbone.
of the cladogram as a representation- Having been introduced to the struc-
al model; on the contrary, it shows the ture and properties of cladograms, we
ability of the model to represent the can now explore their applications in
underlying data more clearly, depend- biology by expanding our understand-
ing on subject focus. Indeed, while the ing of clades. Clades are defined by
same evolutionary pathways depicted particular identifying features (synapo-
in cladograms are also present in den- morphies) that taxa have in common.
drograms and other phylogenetic trees, For example, as shown in the clado-
they can be obscured by the visual ar- gram in figure 7, the embryos of fish,
borization, the structural complexity, lizards, rabbits, and humans develop
of these models. In cladograms, not within amniotic sacs (a synapomor-
only are these pathways readily appar- phy), and thus belong to the clade
ent, but by transposing taxa along the Amniota. All of these creatures have
vertical axis at the proper nodes, the a vertebral column (another synapo-
direct lineage of any taxon of interest morphy), as do lancelets and lampreys;
can be easily visualized. Again, these thus, all belong to the clade Vertebrata.
manipulations do not modify the un- However, lancelets and lampreys do
derlying scientific empirical facts in not have amniotic sacs, and so are ex-
any way, any more than looking at a cluded from the clade Amniota. Note
sculpture from different angles chang- also that the clade Amniota is nested in
es the sculpture itself. However, the the clade Vertebrata, i.e., all members
viewer needs to be aware of this “poly- of clade Amniota are also members of
morphic” property, or they could be clade Vertebrata, but not all vertebrates
misled into thinking that the main line are amniotes.

Figure 6. Cladogram equivalence. In panel B, taxa D-E-F have been rotated 180° to
appear as F-E-D, yet the topology—and, therefore, the evolutionary relationship it
represents, is unchanged.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 23

Figure 7. Cladogram with two clades
(after https://bio.libretexts.org/workbench/general_ecology_ecology/chapter_7%3a_the_
history_of_life_systematics_and_phylogeny/7.7%3a_phylogeny_and_cladistics)
Figure 8 depicts a wider spectrum evolutionary line for a particular taxon,
cladogram with more examples of the selection of which depends on how
synapomorphies and clades. It demon- the cladogram is configured.
strates several notable characteristics This last characteristic is perhaps
of cladograms in general: 1) By con- the most important for the purposes
vention, evolution (the development of of this paper, which deals with human
taxa with new adaptive features) is de- evolution. Recall that what appears to
picted as proceeding from left to right. be the main line is entirely dependent
2) The main line has a positive slope to on how we “rotate” the taxa and clades
indicate, vaguely at least, the passage in a cladogram, the topology of which
of evolutionary time. 3) The horizon- is determined by true evolutionary
tal distance between taxa qualitatively relationships based on scientific data,
reflects their evolutionary distance and remains unchanged in that clado-
(biological difference). 4) The emer- gram no matter how we view it. This
gence of synapomorphies gives rise to is a subtle but profound distinction that
new clades. 5) As evolution continues, will be developed in the rest of this
specialization and complexity tend to paper.
increase and, therefore, the resulting The representative value of clado-
clades generally become more fo- grams is that, because they are based
cused, having smaller numbers of taxa on the appearance of evolving features,
included. However, there are many evolutionary progress in complexity
exceptions to this, and this characteris- and functionality can be easily seen.
tic should be taken as phenomenolog- This property can evoke consternation
ical. 6) The main line shows the direct among systematic biologists who hold
24 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

Figure 8. Broad spectrum cladogram withlabeled synapomorphies and clades
(after https://srsscience.weebly.com/cladograms--dichotomous-key.html)
what has become a central dogma in biocomplexity than their green algal
evolutionary biology: that evolution ancestors by having specialized multi-
has no purpose, no direction, and, there- cellular structures such as roots, stems,
fore, no progression. The corollary of leaves, and flowers, which enable ad-
this viewpoint is that one form of life is vanced nutrient transport, reproduction,
not more “evolved” than another form and environmental adaptation. They
of life. Taken to its logical extreme, also possess advanced genetic regula-
paramecia are just as “advanced” as tion and co-evolutionary relationships
humans. Thus, any cladogram that with pollinators, reflecting increased
purports to show evolutionary progress ecological integration and evolution-
is considered to be anthropocentric ary innovation. In this cladogram, each
(Sandvik). Yet, undeniably, evolution- evolutionary step is a synapomorphy
ary progress does occur, in the form of that demarcates a clade. For example,
emerging biocomplexity (Zhang). One the evolution of multicellular embryos,
need not invoke any kind of teleology a synapomorphy that is the hallmark
to accept this fact; it is due to entire- of land plants, places plants ranging
ly natural, evolutionary mechanisms from liverworts to angiosperms in the
(Lenski et al.). clade Embryophyta (Lecointre and
To give an example of how clado- Le Guyader 175). In a similar man-
grams can clearly reveal the emergence ner, evolution of vascular tissue led to
of increasing biocomplexity in evolu- plants belonging to the clade Vasculata,
tion, we can examine a cladogram of and the evolution of seeds gave rise to
land plants (figure 9). This cladogram the clade Spermatophyta. In this clado-
shows some of the evolutionary steps gram, the evolutionary “progress” of
leading to the emergence of angio- plants from simple green algae to bio-
sperms from a green algal evolutionary logically advanced angiosperms can be
ancestor. Angiosperms exhibit greater easily seen.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 25

Figure 9. Cladogram of plant evolution (after https://www.bartleby.com/solution-answer/
chapter-27-problem-15tyu-biology-mindtap-course-list-11th-edition/9781337392938/
evaluate-and-synthesize-15-interpret-data-according-to-the-cladogram-in-figure-27-5-
which-plants/f02fcaab-560e-11e9-8385-02ee952b546e)

U C (pathways and emergence) that are less
U H E apparent with other methods (Ashlock).
Although it can be argued that there is
As a representational tool, cladograms an inherent anthropocentricism in the
offer a different—and, as far as I can tell use of cladograms, nevertheless we can
from my review of the Bahá’í-related apply this method of viewing of human
literature, heretofore unexplored—way evolution if we keep the proper use of
of visualizing ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s state- cladograms, described above, in mind.
ments on evolution. I emphasize here We begin with figure 10, which
that viewing these statements through shows a cladogram of human-related
a cladistic lens is not re-interpreting synapomorphies (indicated by dotted
scientific facts, not proposing a new lines). In this figure, the term pleiso-
theory of evolution, not discarding morphies refers to ancestral traits not
other representations of evolution shared with humans; synapomorphies
such as phylogenetic trees, and above refers to those traits shared with hu-
all, not re-interpreting the statements mans. The more primitive synapo-
of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Viewing human morphies are lower in the cladogram.
evolution by means of cladograms is Taxa sharing the same synapomorphy
simply using a well-accepted method are in the same clade. For example, the
to perceive evolutionary phenomena kangaroo, mouse, and human all have
26 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

hair, placing them in the “Hair” clade Some synapomorphies, from oppos-
Mammalia; the kangaroo, however, able thumbs to bipedalism, that dis-
though possessing a choriovitelline tinguish primate taxa into smaller and
placenta, lacks the more developed smaller clades are labeled, but many
chorioallantoic placenta (Themes), and more synapomorphies are not identi-
thus does not belong to the “Placenta” fied. In customary practice, cladograms
clade Placentae. Although the clado- are simplified for the sake of visual-
gram shown in figure 10 is extremely izing general evolutionary relation-
simplified—indeed, simplistic, show- ships. Also not shown are the taxa that
ing only a few evolutionary steps—the evolved after the advent of bipedalism
main line of this cladogram clearly (e.g. H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis)
shows the direct evolutionary path for which belong in the genus Homo along
acquiring more characteristics of the with H. sapiens. These taxa, including
current human species, Homo sapiens. modern humans, constitute their own
Focusing on the order Primates, the clade. We will explore the implications
cladogram in figure 11 shows the de- of this in the concluding remarks.
velopment of humans within this order.

Figure 10. Cladogram showing synapomorphies
(after https://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/cladogram1.html)
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 27

Figure 11. Primate cladogram
(after https://www.pinterest.com/pin/leventozgul1970-adl-kullancnn-evolution-
panosundaki-pin--623678248370219145/)

U ‘A ’ -B ’ encompasses all things and as far
S L C as human capacity permits, dis-
covers their realities and becomes
Using the cladogram as a visualization aware of the properties and effects,
tool—not to prove anything, but to the characteristics and conditions
better comprehend evolutionary rela- of earthly things. (Some Answered
tionships—we can now turn to some of Questions 241)
the statements made by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
about human evolution. In so doing, In approaching human evolution
the intention is not to advance a new from a Bahá’í perspective, the funda-
interpretation of His statements, but mental tenet is: humans are separate
rather to stimulate the reader to revisit from animals by reason of having ra-
and deepen their own understanding of tional souls. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declares
these statements. that

S O [T]he foremost degree of compre-
hension in the world of nature is
The human spirit, which distin- that of the rational soul. This pow-
guishes man from the animal, is er and comprehension is shared in
the rational soul, and these two common by all men, whether they
terms—the human spirit and the be heedless or aware, wayward or
rational soul—designate one and faithful. In the creation of God, the
the same thing. This spirit, which rational soul of man encompasses
in the terminology of the philos- and is distinguished above all oth-
ophers is called the rational soul, er created things: It is by virtue
28 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

of its nobility and distinction that that it is obscured by the structures of
it encompasses them all. (Some those models. The cladogram helps us
Answered Questions 250) see more clearly when specific synapo-
morphies appeared in human ances-
The defining feature of the human tors—including those synapomorphies
being—the human essence, in the alluded to in this statement by ‘Abdu’l-
sense that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá discusses it— Bahá, namely the vertebral structure,
is spiritual, not physical. This should the development of four limbs with
be borne in mind: while a cladogram bony digits that characterizes tetrapods
can clarify the nature of human be- and enabled vertebrates to live on land,
ings’ biological relationship to animals and bipedalism. As a distinct clade
in a way that helps us view some of in these cladograms, the question of
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on evo- whether the human being is an animal
lution in a new light—as I hope to becomes essentially semantic. Consider
demonstrate here—it does not directly that from a certain perspective, we can
speak to the core of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s ar- call all tetrapods—all amphibians,
gument, which focuses on the spiritual reptiles, mammals, and birds—fish,
essence of the human being. since their last common ancestor with
modern fish was a creature we would
S T categorize as a fish or fish-like creature.
However, the development of the de-
The forms assumed by the human fining tetrapod synapomorphy, and the
embryo in its successive changes further development of the synapomor-
do not prove that it is animal in its phies that characterize each of those
essential character. . . . Realizing animal groups, make it more mean-
this we may acknowledge the fact ingful in most contexts to call a reptile
that at one time man was an in- a reptile, a mammal a mammal, etc.,
mate of the sea, at another period rather than thinking of them as “fish.”
an invertebrate, then a vertebrate It is similarly reasonable to argue that
and finally a human being stand- humans are both within Animalia and
ing erect. Though we admit these yet defined by distinguishing features
changes, we cannot say man is an that set them apart. And while some of
animal . . . (Promulgation 359) these are synapomorphies of the kind
considered by evolutionary biology
The straightforward meaning of this (morphological features such as biped-
statement can be easily visualized by the alism and large brain size), the most
main line depicting human evolution in distinguishing “synapomorphy” from a
figures 10, 11, and 12. I re-emphasize Bahá’í perspective is the actualization
that this direct lineage is also evidenced and appearance of the human spirit. We
in phylogenetic trees and other rep- will examine this more closely in the
resentations of human evolution, but concluding remarks.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 29

Figure 12. Human evolutionary line from anancestor common to other life forms
(after https://www.pinterest.com/pin/189573465546096403/)
S T in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s time. A missing link
would imply direct descent from the
The lost link of Darwinian theory other primates: chimpanzees, gorillas,
is itself a proof that man is not an etc. Rather than a missing link, humans
animal. How is it possible to have shared a MRCA at earlier points in evo-
all the links present and that im- lutionary history with each of the other
portant link absent? Its absence is primates shown in figure 13. This is a
an indication that man has never subtle but profound distinction. Rather
been an animal. It will never be than “direct descent” as it was under-
found. (Promulgation 359). stood in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s time, what
really occurred was successive diver-
Figure 13 is a simplified primate gence: the splitting off of preceeding
cladogram showing the evolutionary taxa over time. The notion of a “miss-
relationships between humans and oth- ing link” has been dismissed in modern
er primates. The bifurcations along the evolutionary biology (Williams and
backbone indicate the points at which Ebach 1), just as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá predict-
other primates diverged from the hu- ed that it would be.
man evolutionary line. Each node of Now, what of the evolutionary line
these bifurcations represents the most prior to each of the MRCAs shown
recent common ancestor (MRCA) of in figure 13? We may consider some
all clades above the node. The clado- of these evolutionary predecessors
gram clearly shows that, indeed, there as having the potential of evolving
is no “missing link” in the sense held into higher organisms, even though
30 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

in actual form and function these from the chemical combination of hy-
predecessors possessed none of the drogen and oxygen.
outward characteristics of the higher This concept can be applied to the
organisms. This potentiality is indi- emergence of humans, although in this
cated ipso facto by the subsequent case the emergence is more gradual
emergence of more advanced spe- and, therefore, not as obvious at any
cies. A mystery of the phenomenon given step. This potential for emer-
of emergence is that the properties of gence existed in the evolutionary line
an emergent entity, whether physical preceding the MRCAs of humans,
(e.g., a mineral) or biological (e.g., a chimpanzees, and other primates.
species) are not found in its predeces- ‘Abdu’l-Bahá alludes to this emer-
sor entities; in other words, the pre- gence when He states, “from the be-
decessors will not themselves display ginning the embryo possesses all per-
the newly emergent properties. To use fections, such as the spirit, the mind,
a physicochemical example, a mol- sight, smell, and taste—in a word, all
ecule of water, H2O, is composed of the powers—but they are invisible
two atoms of hydrogen and one atom and become apparent only gradually”
of oxygen, yet neither elemental hy- (Some Answered Questions 229). The
drogen nor oxygen have any of the gradual emergence of the human line
physical properties of water: its flu- with the successive divergence of each
idity, viscosity, boiling point, etc. The subsequent MRCA supports the con-
potential characteristics of water are cept of the potentiality of humans in
only realized when water “emerges” evolutionary deep time.

Figure 13. Simplified primate cladogram
(after https://www.researchgate.net/figure/cladogram-depicting-the-phylogenetic-
relations-among-seven-primates-adapted-from_fig1_279854352)
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 31

There is, of course, a point in evo- S F
lutionary history when early humans
(in biology, hominins) physically ap- [T]he antecedence of animals to
peared on the earth. This appearance man is not a proof that the essence
may be considered an inflection point of the human species was altered
between human “potentiality” and or transformed or that man came
human “actuality” in the evolutionary from the animal kingdom. For so
sense used here. This biological emer- long as it is acknowledged that
gence conceivably could have been these different beings have ap-
after the divergence of the last primate/ peared in time, it is possible that
human MRCA. This would be in ac- man simply came into existence
cord with a statement of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá after the animal. Thus we observe
that “…it is possible that man simply in the vegetable kingdom that the
came into existence after the animal” fruits of different trees do not ap-
(Some Answered Questions 221). pear all at once; on the contrary,
This concept is developed further in some appear earlier in the season
Statement Four. and others later. This priority is not
a proof that the later fruit of one
tree was produced from the earlier
fruit of another. (Some Answered
Questions 221)

Figure 14. Cladogram showing evolutionary divergence between humans and other
primates (Ma = megaannum = millions of years ago) (after https://www.researchgate.net/
figure/phylogenetic-tree-of-primates-cladogram-showing-the-evolutionary-divergence-
between_fig1_336892351)
32 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

The cladograms shown in figures all past and present existing entities in
11, 12, 13, and 14 express this phe- the physical creation are “fruits” of the
nomenon. To see this, it is important one “tree” of creation—and consonant
to note that each of the non-human with Statement Four, the prior appear-
groups (chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.) ance of these “fruits” is not a proof
did not appear at the evolutionary time that the later fruit of one tree was pro-
of the related MRCA; these groups duced from the earlier fruit of another:
gradually evolved into their present humans did not directly descend from
state just as humans did. (This is why, chimpanzees, monkeys, or prosimians.
for example, it is incorrect to say that
“humans descended from chimpan- S F
zees”; rather, both chimpanzees and
humans evolved from a MRCA.) Thus, Let us suppose that man once bore
the topmost horizontal row of each a resemblance to the animal and
cladogram represents the “fruits” of that he has since evolved and trans-
the different evolutionary “trees” (i.e., formed. Accepting this statement
the different evolutionary pathways does not prove the transformation
shown in the cladograms). For exam- of species, but could instead be
ple, the cladogram in Figure 14 clear- likened to the changes and trans-
ly shows that prosimians represent an formations that the human embryo
“earlier fruit” appearing earlier in the undergoes before reaching its full
evolutionary “season” from a “differ- development and maturity, as was
ent tree.”(The cladogram in Figure 14 earlier mentioned. To be more ex-
may appear as a single tree, but this is plicit, let us suppose that man once
only because each evolutionary path- walked on all fours or had a tail:
way for chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. is This change and transformation is
simplified to a single line; if mapped at similar to that of the fetus in the
a higher resolution that included more womb of the mother. Even though
evolutionary ancestors and their tax- the fetus develops and evolves
onomic branches, each line in Figure in every possible way before it
14 would appear as a tree in its own reaches its full development, from
right.) Alternatively, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s the beginning it belongs to a dis-
statement makes sense if we consid- tinct species. (Some Answered
er the “main line” of Figure 14 to be Questions 223)
like the soil from which a number of
trees (portrayed as simple lines in the Here, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá draws a par-
cladogram) grew, with each species in allel between human embryogenesis,
those trees being “fruits.” This in no wherein “ontogeny recapitulates phy-
way contradicts, or is contradicted by, logeny”7 and human phylogenesis. In
other statements in the Writings that all
of creation is essentially one—clearly,
7 The concept that “ontogeny
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 33

the long evolutionary history leading a cladogram—culminating in a biolog-
to the appearance of species Homo ical structure capable of manifesting
sapiens, humans have always been hu- the human spirit or rational soul.
man in potentiality. A human embryo
is always human regardless of how it C R :
may transiently appear in utero. It takes A H S C ?
time for the embryo to develop into a
baby to enter the extrauterine world. Stepping back from all interpretations
In similar fashion, it took time for hu- and speculations on the meaning of
man form and capacity to be realized in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on human
the natural world, allowing the human evolution, there is, I believe, a funda-
spirit, the rational soul, to manifest. mental grounding principle, formulat-
The MRCA of humans and any ed by William Whewell and quoted by
other species—be it chimpanzee, go- Darwin himself in the preface page of
rilla, or shark—gave rise to divergent On the Origin of Species, that we must
lineages through its offspring, one keep in mind:
eventually leading to humans and the
other to another species. While this But with regard to the material
ancestor was not human in the taxo- world, we can at least go so far as
nomic sense, it can be metaphorically this—we can perceive that events
viewed as an embryonic stage in hu- are brought about not by insulated
manity’s development, representing interpositions of Divine power, ex-
a form oriented toward the eventual erted in each particular case, but by
emergence of human-specific traits. the establishment of general laws.
This perspective rejects the notion of a
separate, non-animal lineage evolving Bahá’ís are in full agreement with
into humans, and instead affirms that this statement. The fundamental posi-
the human form arose from a contin- tion in Bahá’í belief is that the natural
uous line of “proto-human” ances- universe, together with its underly-
tors—traceable along the backbone of ing physical laws, were created by
God (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation
recapitulates phylogeny” was first formu- 462–63). They believe that the natural
lated by Étienne Serres in the 1820s, based world and its laws are the manifesta-
on the work of Johann Friedrich Meckel, tions of God’s creative power, and that
and is known as the Meckel-Serres Law nature reflects God’s will. Moreover,
(Dupont). Championed by Ernst Haeckel Bahá’ís understand that physical re-
in his General Morphology of Organisms ality is not a fixed and static creation,
in 1866, it was widely accepted up through but a dynamic and ongoing emanation
the time of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements. from God, who sustains it by His will:
Since then, this concept has been largely God the Creator is God the Creating
discredited (Linhard). However, the point (J. Hatcher, Purpose 48). Furthermore,
that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was making still applies.
34 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

Bahá’ís accept that evolution operates about the thing that it represents, we
according to consistent and universal can say that when given the necessary
natural laws that never deviate from data and when properly applied, clado-
their course; science can therefore in- grams can clearly reveal emergent
vestigate these universal laws without biocomplexity and the evolutionary
need of invoking divine “tinkering” in pathways of any species, genus, fam-
a mechanistic sense. Based on these ily, order, etc., efflorescing into the
premises, we can infer that human evo- majestic diversity of life—including
lution is coherent and compatible with Homo sapiens.
scientific investigation—it can be ful- Returning to the definition of a
ly explained by natural mechanisms, clade: a group of taxa that 1) share a
both deterministic and stochastic—and common ancestor, and, therefore, 2)
yet still is purposeful and progressive, have an exclusive evolutionary histo-
and reveals the signs of God. Yet the ry; and 3) possess one or more synapo-
central dogma of current biology is morphies composed of characteristics,
that evolution is purposeless and direc- traits, and functional capabilities from
tionless, that progressive evolution is molecular to organismal levels. Clades
an illusion, that there is no hierarchical are established by genetics and other
order to life, and—especially—that molecular studies, paleontology and
humankind occupies no special station paleobiology, systematic morpholo-
in life (Kadykalo). Cladograms cannot gy, and ethology. Thus, cladistics is
disprove this belief—or any philosoph- grounded in scientific research that
ical interpretation of evolution, theistic is current, rigorous, and well accept-
or atheistic. Indeed, in spite of their ed. This grounding allows us to use
having been criticized as being inher- cladistics as a valid technique to help
ently anthropocentric, introducing an us consider human evolution in light
unintended bias in their presentation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements on the
(Sandvik), we have seen that a clado- subject.
gram can be arranged so as to give to Archaic species of genus Homo that
the unwary reader the appearance that evolved after the advent of bipedalism
any species—from the human to the include H. habilis, H. erectus, H. hei-
hagfish—was the main driving purpose delbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and
of evolution. So what can cladograms H. floresiensis. Along with H. sapiens,
do, and why have I suggested that they these taxa are assigned to the tribe
can help reveal that the apparent ten- Hominini, which includes chimpan-
sion between some of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s zees and bonobos. Archaic and mod-
statements on evolution and contempo- ern humans are further classified in
rary science is illusory? subtribe Hominina, and chimpanzees
Remembering that every model and bonobos are classified in subtribe
or map has a particular function, and Panina, genus Pan. The last common
draws out a particular, partial truth ancestor between Pan and Homo lived
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 35

at least five, and perhaps as early as Answered Questions 250). An appro-
seven, million years ago (Tocheri et priate designation for this clade might
al.). be: Rationalis.
Within this taxonomic structure,
genus Homo could be assigned to
its own clade based on these estab-
A A–S
lished synapomorphies: bipedalism
W C
(Leutenegger), genetic homology
(Coleman), a significantly larger cra- Some advantages of cladistics include
nial capacity (Stanyon et al.), com- (Ashlock):
plex linguistics (Tattersall; Corballis),
and culture formation employing fire, 1. It is grounded in evolutionary
tools, and art (Lake). Current scientif- theory and is complementary to,
ic evidence suggests that differences not incompatible with, other meth-
in mental abilities between apes and odologies in phylogenetics.
humans are gradual (Penny). This is 2. It is based on empirical data
consistent with evolutionary develop- with diverse properties, obtained
ment as a whole: ethological studies from separate methods and sourc-
repeatedly demonstrate rudimentary es, which improves classification
thought and feeling in lower mam- validity.
mals, suggesting that this distinction is 3. It is quite useful for studying
in degree, not kind. Others, however, evolutionary relationships in all
such as the biological anthropologist the major specialties of biology
and linguist Terrence Deacon, see this from botany to zoology.
in a different light. In Deacon’s words, 4. It is particularly good at vi-
“Biologically, we are just another ape. sualizing evolutionary history in
Mentally, we are a new phylum of or- terms of phenetics and evolution-
ganisms” (23). In biological taxonomy, ary development (Harrison).
Phylum is a classification rank posi-
tioned just below Kingdom, represent- Taken collectively, these advantag-
ing a significantly different evolution- es make cladistics an ideal approach
ary category (Williams and Ebach 31). to understanding evolution in general
For humans, therefore, perhaps a and, for our interests, human evolution
more exclusive clade could be derived in particular. More importantly, this
based on the one “synapomorphy” that approach offers a platform for higher
is unique, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá attests, among discourse with wider communities, lay
the entire range of life: the rational and scientific alike.
soul, which He describes as possess- David Williams and Malte Ebach,
ing moral will and a consciousness co-authors of the standard textbook on
capable of transcending nature and cladistics have said, “cladistics is clas-
perceiving the Light of God (Some sification” (403, original emphasis). In
36 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

biology, classification in general can ———. The Promulgation of Univer-
be problematic for several reasons that sal Peace. Edited by Howard
apply to cladistics: MacNutt, 2nd ed., US Bahá’í
Publishing Trust, 1982.
1. Cladistics isn’t well suited to Arnold, Brian J., et al. “Horizontal
accommodate reticulate evolution Gene Transfer and Adaptive
(Sneath), i.e., evolution that oc- Evolution in Bacteria.” Nature
curs from the lateral exchange of Reviews Microbiology, vol.
genetic information by horizon- 20, no. 4, Apr. 2022, pp. 206–
tal gene transfer, etc. (Belal and 18. doi.org/10.1038/s41579-
Heath). Horizontal gene transfer 021-00650-4.
can occur in bacteria, for example, Ashlock, Peter D. “The Uses of Cladis-
by generalized transduction from tics.” Annual Review of Ecol-
viral infection (Arnold et al.). ogy and Systematics, vol. 5,
2. Cladistics is better at incor- 1974, pp. 81–99.
porating some types of data than Belal, Nahla A., and Lenwood S.
others. For example, it is not an Heath. “A Complete Theoret-
ideal classification system for fos- ical Framework for Inferring
sil records that are incomplete and Horizontal Gene Transfers
lacking information about evolu- Using Partial Order Sets.”
tionary relationships (Grantham). PLOS ONE, edited by Vladi-
3. Cladistics can be restrictive, mir Makarenkov, vol. 18, no.
limiting the inclusion of subtly di- 3, Mar. 2023, p. e0281824.
verse taxa (Christoffersen). This is d o i .o r g /10.1371/ j o u r n a l .
a criticism of taxonomy in general. pone.0281824.
Brooks, Daniel R., et al. “Charac-
Cladistics is focused on the classi- ter-Based Cladistics and An-
fication of known taxa rather than the swer Set Programming.” Prac-
discovery of unknown taxa (Williams tical Aspects of Declarative
and Ebach 396). This is not a disadvan- Languages, edited by Manuel
tage per se, it merely reflects the focus V. Hermenegildo and Daniel
of any classification methodology. Cabeza, vol. 3350, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2005, pp.
37–51. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
W C 540-30557-6_5.
Brown, Keven, and Eberhard von
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Some Answered Ques- Kitzing. Evolution and Bahá’í
tions. Edited by Laura Drey- Belief: ʻAbdu’l-Bahá’s Re-
fus-Barney, Newly revised sponse to Nineteenth-Century
ed., Bahá’í World Centre, Darwinism. Kalimát Press,
2014. 2001.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 37

Christoffersen, Martin L. “Cladistic Taxonomy, Phylogenetic Systematics, and
Evolutionary Ranking.” Systematic Biology, vol. 44, no. 3, Sept. 1995, p.
440. doi.org/10.2307/2413605.
Coleman, Jude. “Human-Evolution Story Rewritten by Fresh Data and More
Computing Power.” Nature, May 2023, pp. d41586-023-01664-z. doi.
org/10.1038/d41586-023-01664-z.
Corballis, Michael. “The Giant Leap to Humankind.” New Zealand Science Review,
vol. 67, no. 2, Dec. 2023, pp. 60–62. doi.org/10.26686/nzsr.v67.8899.
Cracraft, Joel. “Pattern and Process in Paleobiology: The Role of Cladistic Analysis
in Systematic Paleontology.” Paleobiology, vol. 7, no. 4, 1981, pp. 456–68.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection of the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Royal Collector’s
edition, Royal Classics, 2020.
Deacon, Terrence William. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language
and the Brain. Norton, 1998.
DeWitt, Richard. Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of
Science. 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2018.
Donaldson, Bryan. On the Originality of Species: The Convergence of Evolution-
ary Science and the Baha’i Teachings. Akka Publishing House, 2023.
Dupont, Jean‐Claude. “Historical Perspective on Neuroembryology: Wilhelm His
and His Contemporaries.” Genesis, vol. 56, no. 6–7, June 2018, p. e23218.
doi.org/10.1002/dvg.23218.
Faith, Daniel P., and Peter S. Cranston. “Could a Cladogram This Short Have Arisen
by Chance Alone?: On Permutation Tests for Cladistic Structure.” Cladistics,
vol. 7, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–28. doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00020.x.
Fentress, John C. “Ethological Models of Hierarchy and Patterning of Species-Spe-
cific Behavior.” Motivation, edited by Evelyn Satinoff and Philip Teitelbaum,
Springer US, 1983, pp. 185–234. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4286-1_5.
Fuellen, Georg. “Homology and Phylogeny and Their Automated Inference.” Na-
turwissenschaften, vol. 95, no. 6, June 2008, pp. 469–81. doi.org/10.1007/
s00114-008-0348-1.
Gavryushkina, Alexandra, et al. “Bayesian Inference of Sampled Ancestor Trees
for Epidemiology and Fossil Calibration.” PLoS Computational Biolo-
gy, edited by Katia Koelle, vol. 10, no. 12, Dec. 2014, p. e1003919. doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003919.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History.
Norton & Co, 1990.
Grantham, Todd. “The Role of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction: Why Is It
So Difficult to Integrate Paleobiological and Neontological Evolutionary
Biology?” Biology & Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 5, Nov. 2004, pp. 687–720.
doi.org/10.1007/s10539-005-0370-z.
38 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

Gregory, T. Ryan. “Understanding Evolutionary Trees.” Evolution: Education and
Outreach, vol. 1, no. 2, Apr. 2008, pp. 121–37. doi.org/10.1007/s12052-
008-0035-x.
———. “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common
Misconceptions.” Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol. 2, no. 2, 2,
June 2009, pp. 156–75. doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1.
Haeckel, Ernst. “The History of Creation, Vol. 1.” The Project Gutenberg eB-
ook of the History of Creation, www.gutenberg.org/files/40472/40472-
h/40472-h.htm. Accessed 8 Feb. 2024.
Haque, Omar. Phylogenetics: Evolutionary Relationships and Classification. Britan-
nica. www.britannica.com/science/phylogenetics. Accessed 8 Feb. 2024.
Harrison, Terry. “Cladistic Concepts and the Species Problem in Hominoid Evo-
lution.” Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution, edited by Wil-
liam H. Kimbel and Lawrence B. Martin, Springer US, 1993, pp. 345–71.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3745-2_14.
Hatcher, John S. Close Connections: The Bridge Between Spiritual and Physical
Reality. US Bahá’í Publishing, 2005.
———. The Purpose of Physical Reality: The Kingdom of Names. Bahá’í Publish-
ing Trust, 1987.
Hatcher, William S. “A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God.” The Journal of
Bahá’í Studies, vol. 5, no. 4, Dec. 1993, pp. 1–16. doi.org/10.31581/jbs-
5.4.1(1993).
———. “Epilogue on Neo-Darwinian Theory.” William S. Hatcher Library, 2008,
william.hatcher.org/media/articles/epilogue-on-neo-darwinian-theory.
Accessed 8 Feb. 2024.
Henning, Willi. Phylogenetic Systematics 1966. 1966. Internet Archive, archive.
org/details/hennig-phylogenetic-systematics-1966.
Huelsenbeck, John P., Fredrik Ronquist, et al. “Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny
and Its Impact on Evolutionary Biology.” Science, vol. 294, no. 5550, Dec.
2001, pp. 2310–14. doi.org/10.1126/science.1065889.
Huelsenbeck, John P., Jonathan P. Bollback, et al. “Inferring the Root of a Phyloge-
netic Tree.” Systematic Biology, edited by R. Olmstead, vol. 51, no. 1, Jan.
2002, pp. 32–43. doi.org/10.1080/106351502753475862.
Kadykalo, Andrii. “Scientific and Theological Responses for Evolution and Bio-
logical Complexity.” Scientia et Fides, vol. 8, no. 2, Oct. 2020, pp. 351–69.
doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.025.
Khursheed, Anjam. Science and Religion: Towards the Restoration of an Ancient
Harmony. Oneworld Publications, 1987.
Kluge, Ian. “Some Answered Questions: A Philosophical Perspective.” Lights
of Irfán, vol. 10, Irfán Colloquia, 2009, pp. 149–274, bahai-library.com/
kluge_saq_philosophical_perspective.
A New Perspective on Human Evolution 39

Lake, Mark. “Archaeological Inference and the Explanation of Hominid Evolu-
tion.” The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition,
edited by Stephen Shennan and James Steele, Routledge, 2005, pp. 184–
201. doi.org/10.4324/9780203974131.
Lample, Paul, editor. Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings on Spiritual Reality. Palabra Publi-
cations, 1996.
Lecointre, Guillaume, and Hervé Le Guyader. The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic
Classification. Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 2006.
Lenski, Richard E., et al. “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features.” Nature,
vol. 423, no. 6936, May 2003, pp. 139–44. doi.org/10.1038/nature01568.
Leutenegger, Walter. “Origin of Hominid Bipedalism.” Nature, vol. 325, no. 6102,
Jan. 1987, pp. 305–305. doi.org/10.1038/325305c0.
Linhard, Tina. “Early Embryonic Morphology and Its Changing Forms.” Journal
of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health, vol. 32, no. 2, Winter
2017, pp. 1–15.
Lipps, Jere H., et al. Evolution of Biologic Complexity: Evidence from Geology,
Paleontology, and Molecular Biology. Edited by Richard B. Hoover, 1998,
pp. 138–48. doi.org/10.1117/12.319851.
Loehle, Craig. “On Human Origins: A Bahá’í Perspective.” The Journal of
Bahá’í Studies, vol. 2, no. 4, Dec. 1990, pp. 45–58. doi.org/10.31581/jbs-
2.4.3(1990).
Losos, Jonathan B., et al. “Evolutionary Biology for the 21st Century.” PLOS Biology,
vol. 11, no. 1, Jan. 2013, p. e1001466. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001466.
MacLean, Evan L., et al. “How Does Cognition Evolve? Phylogenetic Compara-
tive Psychology.” Animal Cognition, vol. 15, no. 2, Mar. 2012, pp. 223–38.
doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0448-8.
Martincorena, Iñigo, and Nicholas M. Luscombe. “Non‐random Mutation: The
Evolution of Targeted Hypermutation and Hypomutation.” BioEssays,
vol. 35, no. 2, Feb. 2013, pp. 123–30. doi.org/10.1002/bies.201200150.
Matthews, Gary. The Challenge of Bahá’u’lláh. Stonehaven Press, 1993.
Mavrodiev, Evgeny V., and Alexander Madorsky. “On Pattern-Cladistic Analyses
Based on Complete Plastid Genome Sequences.” Acta Biotheoretica, vol.
71, no. 4, Dec. 2023, p. 22. doi.org/10.1007/s10441-023-09475-5.
Mehanian, Courosh, and Stephen Friberg. “Religion and Evolution Reconciled: ‘Ab-
du’l-Bahá’s Comments on Evolution.” The Journal of Bahá’í Studies, vol.
13, nos. 1–4, Dec. 2003, pp. 55–93. doi.org/10.31581/jbs-13.1-4.3(2003).
Nadimi, Bahman. Bahá’í View on Biological Evolution. 2023, bahai-library.com/
nadimi_view_biological_evolution.
O’Brien, Stephen J., et al. “A Molecular Solution to the Riddle of the Giant Pan-
da’s Phylogeny.” Nature, vol. 317, no. 6033, Sept. 1985, pp. 140–44. doi.
org/10.1038/317140a0.
40 The Journal of Bahá’í Studies 35.4 2025

Oskooi, Salman. When Science and Religion Merge: A Modern Case Study. 2009.
San Diego State University. bahai-library.com/oskooi_disharmony_sci-
ence_religion.
Panchen, Alec L. Classification, Evolution, and the Nature of Biology. 1st ed.,
Cambridge UP, 1992. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565557.
Penny, David. “The Continuity of Mind, from Great Apes to Humans.” New Zea-
land Science Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Dec. 2023, pp. 63–69. doi.org/10.26686/
nzsr.v67.8900.
Perry, Douglas. “Review of On the Originality of Species: The Convergence of
Evolutionary Science and Baha’i Teachings.” The Journal of Bahá’í Stud-
ies, vol. 34, no. 1–4, Dec. 2024, pp. 138–48. doi.org/10.31581/jbs-34.1-
4.572(2024).
Sandvik, Hanno. “Anthropocentricisms in Cladograms.” Biology & Philoso-
phy, vol. 24, no. 4, Sept. 2009, pp. 425–40. doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-
9102-x.
Sneath, P. H. A. “Cladistic Representation of Reticulate Evolution.” Systemat-
ic Biology, vol. 24, no. 3, Sept. 1975, pp. 360–68. doi.org/10.1093/sys-
bio/24.3.360.
Stanyon, R., et al. “Cranial Capacity in Hominid Evolution.” Human Evolution,
vol. 8, no. 3, July 1993, pp. 205–16. doi.org/10.1007/BF02436715.
Tattersall, Ian. “An Evolutionary Framework for the Acquisition of Symbolic Cog-
nition by Homo Sapiens.” Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews,
vol. 3, 2008. doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2008.30006.
Themes, Ufo. Placentation. May 2017, https://veteriankey.com/placentation-2/.
Tocheri, Matthew W., et al. “The Evolutionary History of the Hominin Hand
since the Last Common Ancestor of Pan and Homo.” Journal of Anat-
omy, vol. 212, no. 4, Apr. 2008, pp. 544–62. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7580.2008.00865.x.
The Universal House of Justice. Messages from the Universal House of Justice
1963-1986: Third Epoch of the Formative Age. Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1996. bahai-library.com/uhj_messages_1963_1986.
———.Letter dated 5 July 2010. In Bryan Donaldson On the Originality of Spe-
cies, Akka Publishing House, 2023.
White, W. Timothy J., et al. “Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Se-
quences.” PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, Aug. 2013, p. e69924. doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0069924.
Williams, David M., and Malte C. Ebach. Cladistics: A Guide to Biological Clas-
sification. Third edition, Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Zhang, Zhibin. “Concepts, Measurements and Scientific Problems of Biocom-
plexity.” Integrative Zoology, vol. 2, no. 2, June 2007, pp. 100–10. doi.
org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00049.x.

Choose a second text to read in parallel — a translation, or any other text.