A similar argument has been made for cetaceans with "legs" that leaves me undesired. Those are anchor points similar to a snakes spurs that aid in copulation. This, to me, is just another case of percieved lineage that relies on circumstantial evidence to present its case. Certain scientists may be inclined to claim that they are atavistic legs when in reality all it is an anchoring mechanism to aid in sex.
Or that "may"
not be how scientists do science. Could you provide us with more than self-serving speculation?
According to most pro-evolutionary anthropologists, chimps and apes are more closely related to a Rhesus Macaque...
No.
Where on earth did you get this strange, strange idea?
No anthropologist would tell you that. Not one.
---
Before you start going around telling people what scientists think and why they think it, do you not suppose that you have some sort of obligation to find out what they do, in fact, think, and the reasons why they do, in fact, think it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.