So the question here is: how do you define 'species'?
All types of man had a common ancestor (which we share with the chimpanzees). Should we define this common ancestor as Homo sapiens? I don't think so, because if we follow this reasoning, we could point at the chimpanzee and say: "look, chimps are just a variation of one species, just like us." So technically chimps are as much a Homo sapiens as us. Nature doesn't define what a species is, humans do. Nature just evolves and at some point they can no longer crossbreed. We usually draw the line between species at this point, until I read about lions and tigers that can interbreed.
Following your article's reasoning, we could conclude that lions and tigers are one and the same species: just variation within a species. Is this your point? That man never evolved and just varied?
Please answer me this Tuppence: What would it take to convince you man had apelike ancestors? Even if you don't believe it really happened, tell me what kind of proof you need. I'm starting to think that even a fluent line of fossils, connecting us to all other primates would not convince you.
You would probably deny they were related and that god created them that way and that any lineage was a figment of our imagination.