In evolutionary psychology, it is usual to refer to evolution as adaptation to increasingly complex environments.

Was there ever a moment when the world was simple or static?

Both, the world for the archea and bacteria, and ours, are comparable in complexity.

So, evolution was not aiming to open the perception channels to complexity.
Or was it?

Evolution is a tinkerer, and does not foresee forthcoming adaptations. 

Australians have a problem with rabbits.
They built a fence to stop the spread. Bunnies die of hunger, as they are unable to cross it.
Now, an evolutionary dilemma:

How to evolve?
A small mutation could make a male rabbit jump higher and up the fence.
Another could make a female rabbit grow teeth to cut barbwires.*
But, in all likelihood, the offspring of this putative rabbit couple will lose the mutations. Pure statistics.

Conclusion:
Imposing fitness doesn't alone create function.

So: adaptation doesn't work under pressure.**

How is that for counter intuitive.

*Even with the assumption that the step of evolution in these two cases is possible.
** More (and better) on this: 'Spandrels of San Marcos', by Stephan J. Gould and Richard Lewontin (1978).