"When the human genome was first deciphered more than a decade ago, some scientists expected to find extra genes that explained why humans had an intellectual edge over their closest living relatives and other species. But since diverging from chimpanzees around seven million years ago, it turns out that our human ancestors lost several hundred snippets of DNA, which together led to traits that are uniquely human, the researchers claim.
In ditching these chunks of DNA, our ancient ancestors lost facial whiskers and short, tactile spines on their penises. The latter development is thought to have paved the way for more intimate sex and monogamous relationships. The loss of other DNA may have been crucial in allowing humans to grow larger brains."
It's very interesting to compare characteristics of different species but this does not mean they evolved from eachother Darwinian style. This is a big topic but one of my favourite takes is from David Wolfe:
"If the Theory of Evolution were correct, species ought to be fluid at the present time. They should be "adapting" and turning into one another. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of individuals, engaged in a race towards complexity," "humanity," and "intelligence." This, of course, is not the case. The "struggle" is quite inconclusive. The lower forms, simpler--less fit?--have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain in the same form they have had for eons. Why do they never "evolve" into something "higher?"
The way we are formed is not only dependent on our DNA but also on the way it is read or transcribed.