What this article shows is that the most efficient design will win out in the long run. Being the best in an evolutionary niche is no guarantee of long term survival. Being the fastest animal on earth doesn't help if there is no prey left to hunt. Having a slow metabolism that enables an animal to lie in wait for extended periods before ambushing unsuspecting prey works better. Or moving more slowly but capable of travelling large distances in order to find more food is also a successful strategy.
There will always be outliers in any system that appear to enjoy great success by specialisation, but in the long term the non specialist, adapt to anything creatures are the ones that survive.
Look at the types of cars people drive for an everyday demonstration of this fact. The majority of cars on the road are optimised to carry a reasonable load, at a reasonable speed and with reasonable fuel consumption. Evolutionary (economic) pressure has resulted in moderate increases in performance, comfort and safety, but we are not all driving around in cars that are hyper efficient and capable of 100mph+ performance while using a teaspoon of fuel per mile. We have gas guzzling monster 4x4 off road vehicles, exotic sports cars and small efficient city cars, but the majority of vehicles on the road fall into the distinctively average category.
If road surface conditions get much worse in the UK, then evolutionary pressure will drive up sales of 4x4 off road vehicles to cope with the atrocious driving conditions. Increased fuel costs will drive up sales of small efficient city cars where people don't need to drive long distances. Just what appears to be the current situation in the UK.
Efficiency trumps everything in nature and so it should in engineering. Get the most bang for your money and it is difficult to go wrong. Being in the top three of everything is far better than being first in one thing and bottom of the table in everything else. Specialisation is a poor long term survival strategy.