Either good research or bad reporting
"Shohat-Ophir said the behaviour can be explained by evolution.".
It bloody well can't. Evolution doesn't explain anything. All you can say is:
"I haven't got a bloody clue how this happened - it might or might not be the optimal solution - but we didn't even know what problem was trying to be solved until this gave us the answer'. And then we analysed it retrospectively." Which is descriptive, not causality.
"NOTHING IS 'EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION"
It is simply a post hoc description of what has happened so far. Even whilst it is happening another conspiracy of genetics is attempting to do lots of things, Some of them may be better and fail for [insert your preferred reason here]. Others may be worse - and fail for [insert your preferred reason here]. That's fine - it is one of the most important concepts of the 19th century. I think it is massive in the implications. BUT - it is abused, described as a serial process retrospectively and misunderstood. Cue just about every casual science reporter.
And it doesn't really matter; evolution gives you what you get - not an computationally correct, verifiable through diverse methods and algorithms proof.