I don't see how me posting in an open thread on a public forum implies that I don't expect a response. Please clarify as best you can.
Had you said "more in common genetically", you'd might have had something. Unfortunately you said "more in common biologically", which denotes structural, anatomical, physiological and neurological similarity.
Whether this was your intention or not, the fact remains that it is utter crap.
If you are going to argue a point in any way that makes sense, you need to be more precise.
i) Unless it's "Gary" (or you change your claim to something that you can demonstrate) the worm's name is irrelevant.
ii) Your claim said "you have more in common with a worm than a monkey". To me this implies any worm and any monkey. Now we learn it's one worm. Are you comparing this to all monkey species*, all apid species, or just one monkey in particular? Do not mix quantities.
Look around.
* bearing in mind that sea monkeys don't count, and neither do monkey nuts.