# A New Perspective on Human Evolution

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> 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.
>
> — *A New Perspective on Human Evolution (Used by permission of the curator)*