You aren’t aware very far. You will note that the conflicts among those trees are largely in dotted-line branches, showing poor support. Collapse those branches and there’s much less conflict. That morphological tree is from 1998, too. More recent analyses have agreed more strongly with molecular results. And of course one example doesn’t make a rule either.
Now you’re giving away the store. If good correlation between morphology and genetics shows that the species on a tree are one kind, then humans are the same kind as other primates, all vertebrates are one kind, and so on. Of course you’re very vague on what a kind is. What do you mean by “many of the primate species”? Which ones, and why not all of them?
I’d have to agree (!) with @scd here. Fusion isn’t evidence for common descent, just evidence against a creationist objection (different chromosome numbers) to common descent. Defeat of an argument for separate creation isn’t the same as evidence for common descent, just as evidence against evolution isn’t evidence for creation.