Could we be more closely related to grapefruits than to kumquats? Yes. However we are more closely related to animals than to plants.
"Chimps, orangutans, gorillas and gibbons all have an evolutionary history just like we do, but the Lucies, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Cro-Magnon man and the Neanderthals of their history aren't interesting in the popular press so the liberals leave them out and draw the line direct from chimps to hominoids. Besides, the explanation would be messy and convoluted if they put them in.
What makes you think they have been left out? They are in our direct line back to the shared ancestor of humans and Pan paniscus (Bonobos).
"And when you get right down to it, the liberals are going to say we're more closely related to those pygmy bonabo chimps. You know why that is don't you? It's because the bonabos ƒúçk like bunnies. Liberals worship at the alter of promiscuity you know.
We are more closely related to Bonobos because the molecular evidence says we are.
"Global warming, second hand smoke, chimp/human evolution, bad politically motivated science is the hallmark of liberalism.
The world is warming, the area of contention is the cause of the warming. Second hand smoke is deadly. Humans and Chimps share an ancestor from 5 or 6 million years ago. You sound upset that science is not doing what you want. Why?
When I put up the rhetorical question about grapefruits and kumquats, I really didn’t think there'd be anybody dumb enough to take the bait, but as they say about liberals, "You can't make this stuff up!"
The branching divergence of evolutionary trees tends to mean we should be about equally unrelated to all plants. This tends to be approximately true. Some creationists have tried to spin this "in their favor" by citing how humans and monkeys are equally unrelated to fish. This plays on the misconception that since the monkey is "lower" than man and the fish is "lower" than the monkey, the monkey should somehow fall between the fish and the man in relatedness. What actually happens is that modern fish, man, and monkeys are all "modern" but have diverged in a pattern like the one below.
Man Monkey Fish
| | |
| | |
| | |
--------------- |
| |
| |
| |
|<==(Ancient amphibians) |
-----------------------------
| (Ancient fish)
|
|
Looked at properly, there's an ancient split between true fish and the ancestors of amphibians. Every modern thing that comes off one side of that branch has been diverging for about the same time from everything descended from the other side of that split. That's what we see and what we should see. It's a liberal thing. Don't try to understand it.