The first solution that fits isn't necessarily kept, unless it can be refined to a high enough level of development to compete with other emerging solutions. The eye, for example, evolved separately many times.
BTW, in human engineering the first solution is also often kept. Look at nuclear power. We probably should be using the thorium cycle, but we kept light water reactors because they were the first big reactor commercialized (for military reasons). Another example would be x86 architecture. I am not arguing that evolution is magical in any way, just that human engineering doesn't show signs of being much better in many cases.
I see a lot of engineers who are ignorant of biology claiming that "evolution is slow" and that we should be able to snap our fingers and do better. It's a popular point of view among the singularity crowd.
Engineers are trained to be arrogant about their abilities. This is probably a good thing, since it causes them to fling themselves at problems fearlessly. But it's also not necessarily realistic.
BTW, in human engineering the first solution is also often kept. Look at nuclear power. We probably should be using the thorium cycle, but we kept light water reactors because they were the first big reactor commercialized (for military reasons). Another example would be x86 architecture. I am not arguing that evolution is magical in any way, just that human engineering doesn't show signs of being much better in many cases.
I see a lot of engineers who are ignorant of biology claiming that "evolution is slow" and that we should be able to snap our fingers and do better. It's a popular point of view among the singularity crowd.
Engineers are trained to be arrogant about their abilities. This is probably a good thing, since it causes them to fling themselves at problems fearlessly. But it's also not necessarily realistic.