A recent article entitled "Fluctuating Environment May Have Driven Human Evolution", proceeded to take something that is obvious and attempt to create even more significance from it.  It is obvious, that environmental changes [yes, including fluctuations] have driven ALL of evolution, so to even qualify it as "human" indicates some attempt to make the results more significant than they are.

However, the intent of this article in trying to assign relevance was exemplified by this quote:
According to Magill, many anthropologists believe that variability of experience can trigger cognitive development.
In short, given all the other variables and correlations that exist, let's simply speculate that this also affected human cognitive development.  Of course, humans are the only species that have ever been subject to fluctuating environmental changes, and watching food sources change, and having to respond to different social interactions.  Oh wait ... there are actually other creatures on this planet.

So, for such a statement to have any meaning, then we must first answer why such changes, which have occurred throughout life's history should only have affected humans.  There's little doubt that variability of experience can trigger cognitive development.  So what? 

It's simply another case of sloppy correlations, restating the obvious and explaining nothing.