Interesting read (forgive me if this has already been posted).
"Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations"
This calls into question some of the assumed reasons on this forum around why people seem to be healthier with minimal grain intake. Personally, I feel better and almost never get sick when I eat primally, but to be frank I have never put much faith into the argument that it's due to the fact that we haven't evolved to our current diet at all. There are a lot of posts around how we imagine a person 30,000 years ago lived and ate, but very little rigor around looking at research simply because there isn't much- cavemen were terrible at keeping diaries.
I may guess that people didn't eat many tubers, but I have no way of knowing that, and little to no real scientific research to back that up. I may also guess that we haven't evolved to eat any grain, but I can clearly digest it (unlike something like lactose intolerance which is clearly a real body issue). Using thought experiments ('if I were a caveman...' to try to determine things like that, instead of hard, verified evidence, is how things like the the miasma theory of disease came into fashion in the 1800s- sick people often live in stinking areas, so stink must somehow cause disease.
What I do have hard evidence on is that I have greater energy and feel better eating primally. I don't need to justify it via what ancestors may have dined on, or sweat eating the occasional tomato or enjoy my morning coffee (which people thousands of years ago *definitely* didn't do but no one seems deeply against that here). I'm very down with this lifestyle, but I thought the above article provided some nice food for thought.