What I got from the article is there are still a lot of unknowns and not every scientist agrees with the placement of ape/human. It isn't easy to draw a straight line separating them apparently.
"not every scientist agrees with the placement of ape/human"
Again, a meaningless dichotomy. Every scientist agrees that, biologically, humans are apes; humans are mammals; humans are vertebrates. We are surely on the ape branch of the tree.
What's the alternative? That humans are some star on the top disconnected from other animals? This makes no sense--we share so many characteristics with other mammals--including the placement of our internal organs, and a similar development during the embryo stages. Humans have blood types that are remarkably parallel to those of chimps and close cousins amongst apes.
This is exactly what one predicts from evolution. Otherwise, each event requires "God did it" and has no explanation.
"God did it" does not satisfy minimal requirements as to an explanation, since it can be used anywhere and everywhere. And the sheer number of claims to a god makes any particular one doubtful.