The evolution of useful things

I found the article on “the evolution of useful things” very engaging. It was interesting to know how social scientist like Basalla, Forty, Giedion, Pye, Alexander et al. have different views about evolution of things. Before I begin on the quotes that enthused my thinking I would like to admit that these social scientist have entirely different perspective in looking at useful commodities. They have in a way inspired me to looks at things differently.
--The first quote
“Basalla admits that, Whereas natural things arise out of random natural processes, made things come out of purposeful human activity”
While Basalla talks about the concept of organic evolution he makes the distinction clear between the physical world and the natural world. For him the evolution of things in the physical world is always with a purpose. Right besides I can see two calculators, one is the normal calculator and another is a scientific calculator. The main interface of the calculators is the same however the scientific calculator over the normal calculator seems to be a purposeful design, which will be used by an engineer. I did not go beyond my workstation and I am sure I will find better examples. I think Basalla makes sense
--The second quote
Forty states that “the new designs require new tools for assembly and disassembly, and these new tools in turn enable still further new designs to be realized”
I am convinced by Forty, the refrigerator, the hammer, the computer hardware, the furniture almost everything that we see in daily life fit as an example for his quote.
--The third quote
Gideon’s explanation with respect to the invention of the new chair goes this way “the development of the new patent furniture was thus in response to a new need which happily coincided with a concentration of creativity among ingenious designers”.
This is tricky I think I will have to scratch my brain. I do not agree with his point of view of design by coincidence? Is this what he means.
--The fourth quote
I would like to mention Alexander’s view of fitting form to context, which involves a normal person in the process of evolution of design.
“We should always expect to see design as a negative process of neutralizing the incongruity or irritants or forces which case misfit.”
I liked it because Alexander further expands it giving us the freedom to critic a design without expecting to implement the change that we have suggested. It means, if we have noticed a misfit and if we cannot fix it we can refer to the craftsmen who is simply considered as an agent. The discussion seems to be endless however I would like to make a note of the following quote in my Design Diary

“Misfit provides an incentive to change: good fit provides none”