For years I have argued that (1) the more branching on the evolutionary tree from which you are descended, the more evolved you are (on average), and (2) the more evolved you are, the more superior you are (on average). To many educated people, this sounds ignorant because regardless of when your lineage branched off the evolutionary tree, all extant life has been evolving for the same amount of time. However years ago, I noticed that taxa descended from less branching just seem more primitive, so there must be a logical reason why branching matters. For example, plants seem more primitive than animals and plants have done less branching than animals.

Recently commenter Race Realist informed me of more modern taxonomy that might not fit my theory as neatly. Luckily, even the new taxonomy supports my theory. For example, after only one split on the evolutionary tree, bacteria/a-proteobacteria branch off. After two splits, discoba branch off. After three splits sa[r]p and amorphea splits off.

Source: An Alternative Root for the Eukaryote Tree of Life
Author links open overlay panelDingHe12OmarFiz-Palacios12Cheng-JieFu1JohannaFehling13Chun-ChiehTsai1Sandra L.Baldauf1

So simple branching predicts the clade that contains humans (amorphea) is on top of the evolutionary hierarchy and bacteria are at the bottom. Now among amorphea, once again the clade that contains humans (Holozoa) is tied for the most splits while Amoebozoa has only one.

Sadly, among Holozoa, the clade that contains humans does not come out on top, but I suspects that’s because they didn’t have enough room in the chart to create a comprehensive tree at that level of specificity.