[Oztrich Boy]

Oh boy, I hope everybody is paying attention, look at this:
Could we be more closely related to grapefruits than to kumquats? Yes.
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

Becaue you don't have enough understanding to realize you actually asked a legitimate question.

To give a non-fruit non-controversial analogy:
Humans, chimps, gorillas share a common ancestor
Humans, chimsp also share a common ancestor not ancestral to gorillas, so humans and chimpos are more closely related to each other than either is to the gorilla.

However the divergance between us (humans/chimps) and gorillas is comrised of:
1) divergance bewtween gorilla and human-chimp-gorilla ancestor
. 1i) divergance bewtween human-chimp-gorilla ancestor and human-chimp ancestor
. iii) finally divergance bewtween human-chimp ancestor and humans or chimps respectivly
.

So if we are closer to the human-chimp ancestor than chimps are (ie the rate of evolution for humans has been slower) them gorillas are closer to us than to chimps.

Or going back to your original fruit analogy, we are gorillas.

[StACase]

...so humans and chimpos are more closely related to each other than either is to the gorilla.

That's the load of crap I disagree with. Especially when the liberals start claiming we are most closely related to bonobos as they are doing if you read some of the other posts. And as I point out, it is politically driven. Bononbos are promiscuous, which is why the liberals love them and want to prove we are descended from them. The academic versions of Mary Mapes and Dan Rather are out there lying their respective PHD asses off in order to prove it.