H. Sapiens came from "early fish" the same way that modern "fish" came from "early humans." How's that to confuse the issue? The phrase "came from" is not a sufficient point to get hung up on. Popular science articles will usually contain such simplifications. So do you or do you not understand what "came from" means in this context?
This is what I meant when I said "came from fish". Its a sketch of a "simplified family tree" from the 1968 Smithsonian book "The Evidence of Evolution". (I was unable to transfer a scan from the actual better imaged page to here from microsoft "word" - perhaps someone knows how.). Anyway the book is essentailly the same as below:
Compare this with the recent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews
"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"
(The above pictures depicted ancient fish would of course also be the ancestor to the modern fish as well).