Given the question: Article: Research led by UK and Australian scientists sheds new light on the role that our ancestors played in the extinction of Australia's prehistoric animals. The new study provides the first evidence that Tasmania's giant prehistoric animals were still living on the island when humans first arrived. The findings suggest that the mass extinction of Tasmania's large prehistoric animals was the result of human hunting, and not climate change as previously believed. Scientists have long argued over the reasons behind the worldwide mass extinction that took place towards the end of the last ice age. The main _ are generally thought to be climate change or some form of human impact. People only arrived in Tasmania around 43,000 years ago, when the island became temporarily connected by a land bridge to mainland Australia. None of Tasmania's giant animals, known as "megafauna" were known to have survived until this time. This appeared to clear humans of any involvement in the disappearance of the island's large megafauna. This new international study reports the discovery of giant kangaroos surviving in Tasmania until people arrived, placing humans back on the list of likely culprits for the extinction of the megafauna. Using the latest techniques, the team were able to determine the age of the fossilized remains of the megafauna more accurately than ever before. The results showed that some of these animals survived until at least 41,000 years agomuch later than previously thought and up to 2,000 years after the first human settlers arrived. As climate in Tasmania was not changing dramatically at this time, the researchers argue that this is evidence of these species being driven to extinction through over-hunting by humans. Question: The best title for the passage would be _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Humans involved in prehistoric animals' extinction"?
The answer is:
No