I think orangutangs look more like humans than chimpanzees does.
I recall there being some controversy a few years ago whether the chimpanzee really was more closely related to us than the orangutang. Apparently the orangutang have more "unique physical traits" in common with humans than chimpanzees have with us. The chimps have a closer match in terms of DNA though, but changes in a species global DNA can occur faster or slower depending on the selection pressure it's environment places on it. So we could have diverged from our last common ancestor with the orangutang after we separated from the chimpanzees and still have more DNA in common with the chimps. If over the last couple of million years the orangutangs adaption to it's environment has required significantly more change in DNA than the chimps adaption to it's environment, we can have a closer match in terms of DNA with the chimps, and still have closer ancestry with the orangutangs. That is something I remember they suggested, something that could explain why we share more unique physical traits that are unlikely to be the result of separate evolution with the orangutang. Another idea is that it has been evolutionary negative for the chimpanzee to keep these traits and that they have been removed due to negative selection, but I find that less likely since many of these traits affect the individual neither negatively or positively.
One might argue that the traits have occurred separately on it's own in both humans and orangutangs and that there's no hereditary connection between the two, but that would be highly unlikely, many of these traits are like I said not likely to affect the individual neither positively nor negatively, and are therefore only present in the population by chance, not selection pressure, so to argue that these unlikely mutations occurred in both species by it's own is not really a valid argument.
Gillipig wrote:People should seriously start worshiping me!