A New Perspective on Human Evolution
Exported from 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)