From your source:
All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.
These four constitute the argument:
ltr21q22.3
ltr41
ltr32
ltr21q22.2
There aren't any notations for retroviral DNA on the branch between chimps and humans, so claiming humans more closely related to chimps than Gorillas isn't supported by your chart.
The classic primate "family tree" excluding a few early branches looks like this:
Your source would split out the Orang and Gibbon, but that's not the way he drew it. Which leads me to believe he is pushing the humans descended from chimps* button as hard as he can.
*And he'll get around to bonobos in due time. There aren't any notations for retroviral DNA on the branch between chimps and humans, so claiming humans more closely related to chimps than Gorillas isn't supported... You're right, I was interpreting the top ones as being common to us and chimps, but it isn't drawn that way.
Here's some of a PUbMed article:
The morphological picture of primate phylogeny has not unambiguously identified the nearest outgroup of Anthropoidea and has not resolved the branching pattern within Hominoidea. The molecular picture provides more resolution and clarifies the systematics of Hominoidea. Protein and DNA evidence divides Hominoidea into Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae, family Hominidae into Ponginae (orangutan) and Homininae, and subfamily Homininae into two tribes, one for Gorilla, and the other for Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo. Parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses, carried out on orthologous noncoding nucleotide sequences from primate beta-globin gene clusters, provide significant evidence for the human-chimpanzee tribe and overwhelming evidence for the human-chimpanzee-gorilla clade....
Here's another diagram, using molecular clocks
And here's another take
Original caption:
Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of human, chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla and orang-utan Xq13. Reprinted with permission from Nature Genetics (Kaessmann et al., 2001).
Obviously I don't have permission...
I believe the length of the branches represents the genetic distance, although the article doesn't say so.
If this last one is close to the truth, I'd say that we're equally related to Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus
The "classic" tree is clearly invalidated by the evidence. EG, it doesn't group us, chimps, and gorillas together, whereas every source I looked at did, like the PubMed I quoted above which described the evidence for it as "overwhelming".
The "classic" is based on morphology only, I imagine, so that the hairy apes are one group and we're another. But the DNA says something else entirely.
Thanks for pointing out my oversight; researching the last post was quite informative.