I was talking about "diversity" as in "number of species."
Fish isn't exactly an accurate grouping anymore, though. :/
Yeah. For instance, the salmon (I don't care which kind - any salmon) is more closely related to humans than it is to sharks.
The one about Tyrannosaurus rex being more closely related to a sparow is right, but the part about the timeline is somewhat misleading.
I think the time aspect was probably added to surprise the people who hadn't given much thought to the time scales involved. The era of dinosaurs - the way people usually think of dinosaurs, so I'm not including birds even though they are
dinosaurs - was so long compared to this current, arguably mammal-dominated one that many fail to realise that the evolution of humans is small potatoes compared to what the dinosaurs went through.
People who are not familiar with the history of life might also be surprised to find out that multicellular life emerged just 1.7 billion years ago (I looked up the figure in Wikipedia
.) Life has been around for about 3.5 billion years, so for half of the history of life you didn't even have multicellular organisms.
The Cambrian explosion
, which gave us most of the major animal phyla around (I'm basically quoting the article,) happened about 500 million years ago. So life had already been going for about 3 billion years before animals became really relevant. (I'm basing "relevance" on what sort of record the organisms left - so whatever life there was before this era would be declared "irrelevant" if their bodies were too soft to fossilise.) If you divide the history of life on Earth into 500-million-year periods you won't have complex animal life in the first 6 of your 7 periods.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.