As the evolutionary biology teacher pointed out, it would be better to say that some genes have more or less similarity to those in mammals. For example, as another part of the study revealed, the circadian clock (and the relevant genes) of the honeybee are more like those in mammals than those in other insects, but this would be called "convergence." And as this article here indicates, there are other "paradoxes" in that they don't fit expectations based on posited evolutionary relationships.\n\nOf course, if evolution were true, a less-evolved insect would have changed less from the common ancestor with vertebrates, and so in that sense be more closely related to humans and other mammals. To illustrate with a case much closer and more obvious: If we discovered an ape that had evolved less than chimpanzees from our common ancestor (was more "primitive" or like a \n"living fossil"), we'd say it was more closely related to us, wouldn't we? \n\nMaybe evolutionary biology is so hard to teach because it's just a bunch of confusing, changing stories connecting dots of data in ways that can never be demonstrated to be true.