Well, on the one hand that's true. But on the other hand, a lot of the living languages have that too. BASIC is 52 years old, sure, but no 52-year-old BASIC program would even compile in a modern BASIC, and I mean, it's not even close, not like a couple keywords or some chars here or there, but the entire structure of the language is fundamentally different now.
By that standard: C is still recognizably the same. I'd suggest C++ is a different language before and after templates, which cuts it down to 27 years, and if you wait for the STL to be usable before you say they "took", less than that, but I imagine a lot of the early C++ would still compile or nearly so. Python has smoothly evolved and I can't point to any one feature that was a hard transition, but it is a fairly different language today than it was in the 1-1.5.2 era, but a lot of the 1.5.2 would still run OK. Javascript has actually been relatively stable as a language, coming out of the gate with rather a lot of stuff already built in. Java has also been pretty stable as a language. I don't know enough about Fortran or COBOL.
Lisp is an amusing case where a lot of old Lisp is probably reasonably close to parseable but probably doesn't run at all beyond the basics.
I fully acknowledge there's some subjectivity to the judgments here, but I think part of the 100-year-language idea is that code in the 100 years language should still be usable 100 years later, directly. By that age measure we're shorter on viable languages, though we still have some.