I think this is exactly the distinction the article is trykng to make. The statement "apes haven't gone away because there are humans" has a false premise: ape

I think this is exactly the distinction the article is trykng to make. The statement "apes haven't gone away because there are humans" has a false premise: apes have changed a whole bunch since the common ancestor they share with humans, just like humans have. Back when there were no humans as we know them, there were also no apes as we know them. As far as I remember from biology, even if there is no selection pressure on a population, the population will still experience genetic drift and will still change over time.