I do believe the question is one of being a close relative not an identical twin. We are indeed the smarter cousin but the difference is one of contingency, we happened to become upright, freeing our hands for all sorts of manipulation, large brained and had our palate change enough to facilitate language. The chimps may have been upright walkers at the point of human/chimp separation but they lost that and never developed the palate and brains we did.
Even so, chimps are capable of learning, communicating and using tools. The division between chimps and humans is one of degree not essence.
In any case the evidence of transitional fossils, morphological similarity and molecular evidence trumps your - we aren't related because we are a little better than them.
>In any case the evidence of transitional fossils, morphological similarity and molecular evidence trumps your - we aren't related because we are a little better than them.
We are much, much different than chimps. But who cares? We're humans and of God and they're just plain chimps and closer to the inanimate than the animate. Humans are of God, chimps are of the inanimate.