Among primates, humans are least related to?

Question

Monkeys? Gorillas? Chimps? or Orangutans?

Answer 1

Aegyptopithicus would be my answer. This baby was the ancestor of all the extant primates and all the old world monkeys.

This takes us back about 32 million years and, right now, it looks like the ticket

I'd say, he was the most distant from us moderns humanskis.

From your list of recent primates, we are very close to both Chimps and Bonobos. We are probably more closely related to Orangutans emotionally then the others recent examples you site.

Answer 2

Monkeys. The other choices are apes, as humans are.

Answer 3

Chimpanzees are our closest primate relatives (DNA similar by roughly 98%), then gorillas, then orangutans. The least similar--out of what you have listed -- are monkeys of the New World variety (if it can swing by it's tail, it's New World; if it can't, it's Old World). A spider monkey is an example of a New World monkey; a baboon is an example of a Old World monkey. However, there are more primates than the simians you have listed.  Also consider the prosimians: ancestors to our closest simian ancestors.  These include tarsiers and lemurs.  Among primates, the prosimians would be our most distant relatives.

Answer 4

the chimpanzee

also the gorilla.

Known collectively as Pongidae (i.e. antropoid apes - man-looking apes)

Answer 5

good luck

Answer 6

We're not related to ANY of them, other than through the fact that we are 'living' things like they are, just the same as a fruit fly or a tin of baked beans (vegetables) and the DNA difference, although closest to the Chimp, is very similar in ALL living things.  But evolutionists have desperately 'latched on' to this DNA similarity, in a vain attempt to convince themselves and everyone else, that its proof of evolution, to cover the fact that they've got no 'mediatory' (missing link) fossil evidence to support their beliefs. (By the way. I am NOT a creationists nor any other religionist, so I am not biased in ANY way, what-so-ever!).

Evolutionists would have you believe that we share a "Common ancestor" with the Chimps, but it is purely and totally a figment of their imagination, in trying to MAKE the theory of evolution fit the human race.  They don't have a shred of evidence for this "creature". Was it a man? Was it a beast? Was it a bit of both? Whatever they decide it was, will cause a major feasibility problem and that's why they don't 'theorise' that deep.  They haven't even got a name for it, would you believe?  And, after their new DNA 'mis-evidence'(?) 'smokescreen', folly,  that's their strongest argument for human evolution???

Its CLEARLY obvious that, despite our visual simialrites to primates, we are so TOTALLY different from them (and ANY other creature on this planet).  The day one of them dons a suit, shoes, shirt and tie, and defends me, as a qualified lawyer, in a court of law, I will reconsider my state of 'feasible' reasoning.

EDIT  

*n3rday*

I presume that you are referring to me, from your attempts to 'flannel' over my statements of facts.  I naturally accept that you missed, completely, the part where I state that I'm not a creationists, because it is quite typical for your type of evolutionist, to only read what you want to read and, therefore, to beleive what you want to believe.  

I strongly suggest that you run along back to your 'elders', who, I'm sure will point out to you, that you DON'T have ANY, let alone "hundreds", of transitional fossils between apes and humans.  Your "most famous transitional fossil - Lucy", is only "suggested", by an extremely few scientists, as having any connection with mediatory evidence of man's evolution.

You, my friend, are a deluded follower of the faith, of the church of 'evolution', and my pity goes out to you and all your bretheren.

EDIT II

*Jim D*

Your very tiny 34 million year old monkey, "Aegyptopithicus", is not really the 'best' you can come up with as "UNEQUIVOCAL proving evidence" for the validity of the theory of evolution, is it?  That's the joy of evolutionism, you can pick 'ANYTHING', and say, "That does it for me".  It really is a matter of 'faith' and believeing what you want to believe, without any basis of truth, or actual 'facts' to support it.

Never mind, eh?

Answer 7

We are not related to the creatures you mentioned. When God created the earth he made man in his image, and from man God created woman to be his companion. Duh!

Answer 8

Bonobos

Answer 9

Humans are least related to Monkeys. Just Look closely and you will see.

Answer 10

Primates? Man is most related to the "missing link."  Which would decrease unfounded speculations beyond that.  If you don't know who your father and grandfather is, do not expect to know you paternal great great grandfather, either.

Answer 11

Monkeys. We diverged from common ancestors with them the longest ago, eg:

Answer 12

Humans are least related to monkeys, as they are the only thing you've listed that isn't an ape.

Among the apes, humans are least related to Orangutans, followed by Gorillas. We are most related to Chimpanzees and Bonobos (chimps and bonobos diverged from a common ancestor AFTER we had already split off, so we are equally related to both).

Interesting fact - we are more related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas or other apes. Some have gone so far as to refer to us as "The Third Chimpanzee." (the second chimpanzee is, of course, the bonobo).

Also, as a response to the creationist below who claims we have no relation to primates, we have hundreds of transitional fossils between apes and humans. I believe the most famous transitional fossil, "Lucy," an Australopithecus afarensis, is currently on display at a museum in Houston. There is no "missing link," it's merely a term used by mainstream media to describe transitional fossils that we've already discovered.