Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
月 間 報 告 書 : 3 月
G l a s g o w S c h o o l o f A r t1 3 T D 1 1 1 0 デザインマネジメント研究室博士後期課程 1 年 松井 実
1. 研究
MEDes連合の学生を招いた Doctors Colloquiumが行われた．次頁に私のポスターを掲載する．内容はほぼ前回報告書のものと同じ．
@iainreiddesign: @lulugaia presenting doctoral research at the #MEDes2014 PhD event this morning at @GSofA pic.twitter.com/XsYwr1S9QG
ミラノ工科大学の先生（以下ミラノ）と：私「全てのデザインは何か昔のアイディアのコピーみたいなもので・・・」ミラノ「でその very beginningにはユニークなものがあってそれがずっと生き残ってるんでしょ？」私「あいやそれもまた何かのコピーでして ･･･」ミラノ「ふむ」私「それで色々考えもしなかったような組合せで子孫を残せる組合せと残せない組合せが時代ごとにありまして」ミラノ「じゃクリエイティビティはどこにあるの？」私「私の考えでは創造性は純粋には存在しないんだけど」ミラノ「・・・」 学生には概ね好評であった．「オモシロイと思った．特に犬のやつ．俺は犬が好きなんだ」
他のドクターの学生の研究はエンジニアリング色の薄いサービス・エクスペリエンスデザインが多かったように思う．デザイン教育のあり方の研究，コ・デザインの力学（複雑性を濫用していたがコラボレーションや競争がどのように行われていてどのように行われるべきかについて），病院でのエスノグラフィ，職場でのダイアレクトグラム（造語，どのような活動が行われているか気付きを建物の平面図の上にひたすらコミカルに書き連ねる）など．新校舎の音響がかなり悪いのもあってディスカッションは難しかった．病院での調査の仕方が興味深かった．カメラを構えてパシャパシャ写真を撮っていても「調査しているお客さん」扱いをさ
れるが，スケッチしていると「なにしてるの？」「何描いてるの？」と寄ってきてくれてコミュニケーションがとてもとりやすいという．確かに自分の職場の写真を撮っている人がいても誰も「どんなの撮れたの？」とは訊かないだろう．ところがスケッチなら，この人は何に興味を示しているのか，それをどう受け取っているのか，私はどのように描かれているのか，など色々と気になるものだ．英語で TAKE picturesとか SHOOTとか言われるように，写真を撮る行為は「奪い，何かを撃ちだす」攻撃的な印象がどうしても拭い切れない．最近のカメラはメカメカっぽい感じを出すためにわざとカシャンカシャン音が鳴るように作られているので特にたちが悪い…．とにかく，スケッチは受動的で非侵襲的な，柔らかな方法といえそうだ．学部時代の指導教員が言っていたことだが，研究は常に問われる「so what?（それがどうしたの）」に抵抗し続けなければな
らない．日本でのデザインの「研究」は研究というより実践例の発表という性格が強く，学術的な意義はともかくとして，とにかく大なり小なりデザインの前進に貢献しているという実感があるのが強みだった．MEDesの傾向なのかどうかわからないが 1，so whatに耐えられるものは極めて少ない．何の得になるかを度外視して真理を追求するのだ！というアカデミズムに走るのもありだとは思うが，そうすると今度は科学的な厳密性が求められるのにその傾向はまるでない．全体的にふわふわである．
1 例えばデルフト工科大は実践例重視のプラクティカルな方針であるため大学ごとの性格が強いか．エディンバラ芸術大学は工芸からスタートしているためジュエリーデザインやテキスタイルなどいわばプリミティブなデザインの傾向があると聞いた．既にエディンバラ大学に吸収され数あるカレッジのうちひとつになっているようだ．
2
1. Design Genetics & Memetics
In design theory, the biological analogies have been per-
vasive since the beginnings of the science of biology in the early
nineteenth century [Steadman, 2008:xv]. According to Alison
Brooks1, evolution of weaponry caused the evolution of our shoul-
der, ‘our stone tools evolved and so did our wrist to make them
better,’ and that ‘we have come to the point where we cannot
survive without culture.’ When considered as a form of cultural
heritage, design can be considered as a part of memetics (fig 1).
Recipes for food are the perfect examples of design as meme. We
copy them, transform them, and then combine with other ‘wild’
recipes. fig 2 shows an example of its close relationship. While in
this YouTube case the ‘mutation’ is actually a preprogrammed da-
ta-compression algorithm YouTube uses, it clearly shows a simple
way of our so-called ‘meme’ can be transformed and be evolved.
fig 3 is an example of the progress of our daily eating , from twin
knives via two-tined forks, three-tined, to our four-tined forks.
Defining it a process of evolution, however, requires genome
and its container. Are designed products replicators? If so, what
would be the gene equivalent? With a couple of coinage, analog-
ical correspondence for biology and design can be comprehended
as follows:
Table 1 Analogical correspondence table for biology and design.
Biology DesignGene Designe? Designeme? ( just as phoneme)Genome Design(noun)DNA 3D Data, as just a part of DNA of designChromosome Same as DNA. Binary data? in specific cases.Reproduction Design (verb)?Gender ?? Recipe?Asexual reproduction Conventional mass-productionUnicellular organism Mass-produced products‘Replicator’ Design(n)+binary data? + manufacturing factoryConventional breeding method Vernacular design(verb)?Genetically modified organisms Innovation; design(v)Error while copying Data glitch, which is sometimes useful. See fig 2.‘Artificial’ Mutation Brain storming, ‘genius’ startup, incubation, scientific
breakthrough?Environment Economic systems?Niche Market share, food=consumer segregationRed Queen’s Hypothesis Jack Welch’s strategy?Geological isolation Cultural segragation, ‘Galapagos cellphone’Pray Raw Materials? Money? Consumer? Morphologic classification Product genreGenetic distance I hope this is measurable...LUCA Not yet knownTree of Life Product genealogy
2. Convergent Evolution in Design
Convergent evolution in biology means species from differ-
ent lineages acquire similar traits(fig 7, fig 8). It is because their
adopted survival strategies are similar, or simply because they live
in the similar environment with similar prays and/or predators.
Same thing happens with product design, as you can see in fig 4,
and fig 15 shows these in recent years.
Although morphological traits seem to distinguish designed
products in their genres such as smartphone, phablet and tablet,
their true genetic distance might be very different as with marsu-
pials examples. How close genetic distance is from iOS to Free
BSD compared to that to Android? How close is 2nd generation
Jaguar XKR to Aston Martin DB92 compared to that to 1st gen-
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RXva1wLsVtE#t=1742 Both are designed by Ian Callum, a GSA graduate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Callum
eration, as the head of the design differs? ... Currently we have
none to measure them with, except some vague, unreliable and
subjective cluster analysis based on family-resemblance.
3. Copy, Transform, Combine, and, Failure
When combined, as fig 6 shows, designed product ‘evolves’.
What is different from genetically modified organisms is that you
do not know whether it is a ‘wanted’ gene as you can now do with
transgenetic/cisgenetic breeding as fig 16 shows. fig 9 shows how
evolution sides with utilitarian ratiolism, along with Finite Ele-
ment Analysis’ optimization algorithm keeping up with it. Rich-
ard Dawkins explained how the process and its ‘product’ look as
though designed, but in reality is not, in 1991 ‘Growing Up in the
Universe’ TV programme3 using a simple Genetic Algorithm pro-
gramme as shown in fig 10. From traditional breeding of crops to
today’s cutting-edge genetic engineering, we have been altering
other species for thousands of years. We distinguish artificial ma-
terials/artifacts from natural objects by the existence of our inten-
tion in them. fig 11 and fig 12 show our failure in manipulating
genes.
Although it seems that there is no corresponding concept
for design as gender for biology, they surely do seem to reproduce.
The notion of recipe seem to fit best to explain this. Unlike bio-
logical species, any combination of designeme works: it just does
not work. See the Google Graveyard4.
4. Designed Products as Superorganism?
Designed products cannot be classified as clear as mammals.
Is iPad Mini a subspecies of iPad 2? Is iPad Air a evolved version
of iPad 2, even though the basic architecture is the same? De-
signed products, such as “Sony X100” and “Ur Leica” can be con-
sidered as just boundaries of the biomechanism of the products.
Each “organs” inside the boundary, such as a CCD sensor, film,
or Bionz chip generating images from the signals from the CCD
sensor, have their own designs and thus corresponding concepts,
strategies, marketing researches, drawings, and so on. They are
technically separable from the recipe of the designed product as
‘parent’ directory.
In that perspective, the relationship between a designed
product and contained parts are more like a colony and its su-
perorganism. Even human body could be considered as a super-
organism5 of itself and its microbiome. If ‘Tools as organs or as
extensions of the physical body’ [Steadman, 2008:119] take part
of this colony, designed products can also be human itself, as the
definition and the boundary has now been so fuzzy.
5. Reference
Steadman, Philip. The Evolution of Designs. Taylor & Francis e-Li-
brary, 2008
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xGyh1Qsw-Ak#t=19504 http://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-failures-google-flops5 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/keyboard-microbiome/ “If humans are thought of as a composite of microbial and human cells, the human genetic landscape as an aggregate of the genes in the human genome and the microbiome, and human metabolic features as a blend of human and microbial traits, then the picture that emerges is one of a human ‘supra-organism’,” argued a 2007 Nature paper lead-authored by Peter Turnbaugh, a Harvard microbiologist.
fig 13. Recipe of pure-bred dogs(part). “Analyzing the DNA of 85 dog breeds, scientists found that genetic similarities clustered them into four broad categories. The groupings reveal how breeders have recombined ancestral stock to create new breeds; a few still carry many wolflike genes.” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/build-a-dog/dog-families-graphic?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptreg-campaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#close-modal
fig 14. World Map of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups. It seems easier to track the origin of traits if you have DNA as solid evidence and its carrier...which designed products currently lack.
fig 15. [Left] Space shuttle on the left, Buran on the right. [Right] Tu-144 on the front, Concorde on the back. In the last days of the Soviet Union, they seem to have been desperate to cope with the western powers. Both designs are rumored that the KGB spies have stolen from them. Not surprisingly, the USSR, which had fallen behind the western powers in technology at that era, created slightly bigger versions of space shuttle and Concorde, as it has been said that the late starters tend to do in order to keep up with the forerunners. http://www.buran.fr/bou-rane-buran/img/STS-Buran-grand.jpg http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/0/9/1116904.jpg
Current cultivar
Wild relative
F1Generation
F2Generation
Back cross
Many backcrosses
Newcultivar
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Unrelated organism
Transfer into plasmid in
Agrobacterium
Current cultivar
Genes required for
transfer
Newcultivar
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Transfer into plasmid in
Agrobacterium
Current cultivar
Genes required for
transfer
Newcultivar
Wild relative
Conventional breeding Transgenesis Cisgenesis
fig 16. Diagram of genetic changes achieved by conventional breeding, transgenetic, and cisgenetic breeding.
fig 17. USSR rocketery genealogy diagram. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=123144
fig 18. Evolution of the F1 Car, along with evolution of their engine and steering wheel(Not included in this poster). http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f0QGNfAb2IM/T_Ce50L8AhI/AAAAAAAABT4/3rIwTAqEAcI/s1600/F1_Evolution_All_cars_small.jpg
fig 1. The evolution of meme, Sushi.
fig 2. Mutation of a video uploaded to YouTube 1000 times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icruGcSsPp0
fig 3. The Evolution of Useful Things. Henry Petroski, 1992. http://www.triz-jour-nal.com/archives/1999/09/b/
fig 4. Convergent evolution of middle stone age point styles 100k-60k years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mWE1R5xw
fig 5. Bower of a Bowerbird, an example of non-human ‘artificial’ creation/design
fig 6. [from left to right] Ur Leica by Oscar Barnack, 1913. World’s first digital camera by Kodak, 1975. 2012 Sony X100 digital camera is roughly the decendant of the two.
fig 7. [from left to right] red king crab is genetically a cousin of hermit crab, al-though its morphology resembles to snow crab much more.
fig 8. Marsupials resemble those of eutherian mammals, although they are far from them in the genetic chromosome map
fig 9. Metacarpal bone from vulture’s wing, stiffened after the manner of a Warren’s truss[right]. An example of truss generated by Finite Element Analysis structure optimization algorithm[left].
fig 10. Richard Dawkins’ Arthromorphs showing a simple example of interactive genetic algorithm(iGA). The parent you chose (middle) propagates eight similar, but different children around it.
fig 11. “It seems incredible that at one time the Bull Terrier was a handsome, athletic dog. Somewhere along its journey to a mutated skull and thick abdomen the bull terrier also picked up a number of other maladies like supernumer-ary teeth and compulsive tail-chasing.”(http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/: 2014-3-4)
fig 12. “The German Shepherd Dog is also a breed that is routinely mentioned when people talk about ruined breeds; maybe because they used to be awesome. In Dogs of All Nations, the GSD is described as a medium-sized dog (25 kg /55 lb), this is a far cry from the angulated, barrel-chested, sloping back, ataxic, 85-pounders (38 kg ) we are used to seeing in the conformation ring. There was a time when the GSD could clear a 2.5 meter (8.5 ft) wall, that time is long gone.”(http://dogbehaviorsci-ence.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/: 2014-3-4)
3
2 . 生活
携帯を盗まれた．おそらく．ゼロ・グラヴィティの評判がよかったので見たかったのだが，既にイギリスでの上映は終わっていた（基本的に日本は映画
の公開が壊滅的に遅い）．しまったと思っていたのだが Take 2とよばれる二度目の上映があったのでそれを見に行った．こちらの映画館はでかい！シアターそのものは日本と同じくらいのサイズだがシアターが 20くらいある．でかい！そして安い．3Dで 800円くらい．3D眼鏡は 1ポンドで買わなければならない．そして映画がまるではじまらない！ 11:40のプログラムだったのに 12時前くらいにスタッフが「なんか設定うまくいってないんだわ，予告編スキップするから許して」と知らせにきた．はじまったのは 12時 20分くらいだったろうか，スキップされるはずの予告編はばっちり上映された．心理描写や複雑な人間関係などがないため英語は比較的問題なく聴き取れた．音大きいし．ただ音響システムの質が問題で，大きな音になるとババババと「ビビる」のが気にかかった．このあたりもイギリスならではか．上映を待っている時に私の席のふたつ隣で何かがカランと落ちる音がしたのだが，そのまた隣に座っていた女性が拾い上げ
たので私の所有物ではないのだろうと思っていた．しかし映画館をでて携帯がないことに気づく．戻って探すが見当たらない！スタッフにも手伝ってもらって 3度探したが見当たらない．焦る．とても遅くてしょもない携帯であったがなくなっては困るのである．あの女性が親切にも警備室に届けてくれたのかとも思ったが普通に考えればまわりに客もいなかったのだし私に直接渡してくれるだろう．案の定警備室にも届いておらず，私は急いで色々なサービスからログアウトし SIMをロックしなければならなくなった．警察にいこうかとも思ったが面倒くさいのでやめた．教訓：財布と携帯は肌身から離した時点で所有権を放棄したと思うべきである．それと Androidデバイスマネージャーでデー
タ消去のセットアップをしておけばよかった．自分にその物品を盗む度胸がないからといって隣りに座った女性にもないとは限らない．その人の目の前を通り過ぎることになっても，友だちと一緒に映画を見に来ていたとしても，隣の東洋人が不用意にも安っぽい携帯を落としたらそれを盗むのはありうることだと思うべきである．
3 . 旅行
エディンバラ．風が強かったのでアーサーズシートというとてつもなく大きな岩に登ってタイタニックごっこをした．
スターリング．スターリングは人口 4万程度でスコットランド最小の都市 cityらしい．ただそれでも都市であり，そこまでさびれた印象はない．空が広く清潔でのんびりした，極めてよい街だと思う．イギリスの諸都市で今のところ一番好きである．
Wikipediaによるとグラスゴー・エディンバラなどのローランドとハイランドを繋ぐ戦略的要所らしい．確かに高台に登って見渡してみると一方にはなだらかな丘風景，一方には山脈のような塊がみえる！とてもダイナミックな風景だった．
UKの都市はそれぞれ独立したアイコニックな特徴があるように感じる．エディンバラはぶちぬき通路，グラスゴーはマッス，スターリンは左端の空中廊下が目立つ．ただテラスハウスのような典型に手が加わっているわけではなく，比較的新しい建物が目立つ．
1. Design Genetics & Memetics
In design theory, the biological analogies have been per-
vasive since the beginnings of the science of biology in the early
nineteenth century [Steadman, 2008:xv]. According to Alison
Brooks1, evolution of weaponry caused the evolution of our shoul-
der, ‘our stone tools evolved and so did our wrist to make them
better,’ and that ‘we have come to the point where we cannot
survive without culture.’ When considered as a form of cultural
heritage, design can be considered as a part of memetics (fig 1).
Recipes for food are the perfect examples of design as meme. We
copy them, transform them, and then combine with other ‘wild’
recipes. fig 2 shows an example of its close relationship. While in
this YouTube case the ‘mutation’ is actually a preprogrammed da-
ta-compression algorithm YouTube uses, it clearly shows a simple
way of our so-called ‘meme’ can be transformed and be evolved.
fig 3 is an example of the progress of our daily eating , from twin
knives via two-tined forks, three-tined, to our four-tined forks.
Defining it a process of evolution, however, requires genome
and its container. Are designed products replicators? If so, what
would be the gene equivalent? With a couple of coinage, analog-
ical correspondence for biology and design can be comprehended
as follows:
Table 1 Analogical correspondence table for biology and design.
Biology DesignGene Designe? Designeme? ( just as phoneme)Genome Design(noun)DNA 3D Data, as just a part of DNA of designChromosome Same as DNA. Binary data? in specific cases.Reproduction Design (verb)?Gender ?? Recipe?Asexual reproduction Conventional mass-productionUnicellular organism Mass-produced products‘Replicator’ Design(n)+binary data? + manufacturing factoryConventional breeding method Vernacular design(verb)?Genetically modified organisms Innovation; design(v)Error while copying Data glitch, which is sometimes useful. See fig 2.‘Artificial’ Mutation Brain storming, ‘genius’ startup, incubation, scientific
breakthrough?Environment Economic systems?Niche Market share, food=consumer segregationRed Queen’s Hypothesis Jack Welch’s strategy?Geological isolation Cultural segragation, ‘Galapagos cellphone’Pray Raw Materials? Money? Consumer? Morphologic classification Product genreGenetic distance I hope this is measurable...LUCA Not yet knownTree of Life Product genealogy
2. Convergent Evolution in Design
Convergent evolution in biology means species from differ-
ent lineages acquire similar traits(fig 7, fig 8). It is because their
adopted survival strategies are similar, or simply because they live
in the similar environment with similar prays and/or predators.
Same thing happens with product design, as you can see in fig 4,
and fig 15 shows these in recent years.
Although morphological traits seem to distinguish designed
products in their genres such as smartphone, phablet and tablet,
their true genetic distance might be very different as with marsu-
pials examples. How close genetic distance is from iOS to Free
BSD compared to that to Android? How close is 2nd generation
Jaguar XKR to Aston Martin DB92 compared to that to 1st gen-
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RXva1wLsVtE#t=1742 Both are designed by Ian Callum, a GSA graduate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Callum
eration, as the head of the design differs? ... Currently we have
none to measure them with, except some vague, unreliable and
subjective cluster analysis based on family-resemblance.
3. Copy, Transform, Combine, and, Failure
When combined, as fig 6 shows, designed product ‘evolves’.
What is different from genetically modified organisms is that you
do not know whether it is a ‘wanted’ gene as you can now do with
transgenetic/cisgenetic breeding as fig 16 shows. fig 9 shows how
evolution sides with utilitarian ratiolism, along with Finite Ele-
ment Analysis’ optimization algorithm keeping up with it. Rich-
ard Dawkins explained how the process and its ‘product’ look as
though designed, but in reality is not, in 1991 ‘Growing Up in the
Universe’ TV programme3 using a simple Genetic Algorithm pro-
gramme as shown in fig 10. From traditional breeding of crops to
today’s cutting-edge genetic engineering, we have been altering
other species for thousands of years. We distinguish artificial ma-
terials/artifacts from natural objects by the existence of our inten-
tion in them. fig 11 and fig 12 show our failure in manipulating
genes.
Although it seems that there is no corresponding concept
for design as gender for biology, they surely do seem to reproduce.
The notion of recipe seem to fit best to explain this. Unlike bio-
logical species, any combination of designeme works: it just does
not work. See the Google Graveyard4.
4. Designed Products as Superorganism?
Designed products cannot be classified as clear as mammals.
Is iPad Mini a subspecies of iPad 2? Is iPad Air a evolved version
of iPad 2, even though the basic architecture is the same? De-
signed products, such as “Sony X100” and “Ur Leica” can be con-
sidered as just boundaries of the biomechanism of the products.
Each “organs” inside the boundary, such as a CCD sensor, film,
or Bionz chip generating images from the signals from the CCD
sensor, have their own designs and thus corresponding concepts,
strategies, marketing researches, drawings, and so on. They are
technically separable from the recipe of the designed product as
‘parent’ directory.
In that perspective, the relationship between a designed
product and contained parts are more like a colony and its su-
perorganism. Even human body could be considered as a super-
organism5 of itself and its microbiome. If ‘Tools as organs or as
extensions of the physical body’ [Steadman, 2008:119] take part
of this colony, designed products can also be human itself, as the
definition and the boundary has now been so fuzzy.
5. Reference
Steadman, Philip. The Evolution of Designs. Taylor & Francis e-Li-
brary, 2008
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xGyh1Qsw-Ak#t=19504 http://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-failures-google-flops5 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/keyboard-microbiome/ “If humans are thought of as a composite of microbial and human cells, the human genetic landscape as an aggregate of the genes in the human genome and the microbiome, and human metabolic features as a blend of human and microbial traits, then the picture that emerges is one of a human ‘supra-organism’,” argued a 2007 Nature paper lead-authored by Peter Turnbaugh, a Harvard microbiologist.
fig 13. Recipe of pure-bred dogs(part). “Analyzing the DNA of 85 dog breeds, scientists found that genetic similarities clustered them into four broad categories. The groupings reveal how breeders have recombined ancestral stock to create new breeds; a few still carry many wolflike genes.” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/build-a-dog/dog-families-graphic?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptreg-campaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#close-modal
fig 14. World Map of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups. It seems easier to track the origin of traits if you have DNA as solid evidence and its carrier...which designed products currently lack.
fig 15. [Left] Space shuttle on the left, Buran on the right. [Right] Tu-144 on the front, Concorde on the back. In the last days of the Soviet Union, they seem to have been desperate to cope with the western powers. Both designs are rumored that the KGB spies have stolen from them. Not surprisingly, the USSR, which had fallen behind the western powers in technology at that era, created slightly bigger versions of space shuttle and Concorde, as it has been said that the late starters tend to do in order to keep up with the forerunners. http://www.buran.fr/bou-rane-buran/img/STS-Buran-grand.jpg http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/0/9/1116904.jpg
Current cultivar
Wild relative
F1Generation
F2Generation
Back cross
Many backcrosses
Newcultivar
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Unrelated organism
Transfer into plasmid in
Agrobacterium
Current cultivar
Genes required for
transfer
Newcultivar
Bene�cial gene
Unwanted genes
Transfer into plasmid in
Agrobacterium
Current cultivar
Genes required for
transfer
Newcultivar
Wild relative
Conventional breeding Transgenesis Cisgenesis
fig 16. Diagram of genetic changes achieved by conventional breeding, transgenetic, and cisgenetic breeding.
fig 17. USSR rocketery genealogy diagram. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=123144
fig 18. Evolution of the F1 Car, along with evolution of their engine and steering wheel(Not included in this poster). http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f0QGNfAb2IM/T_Ce50L8AhI/AAAAAAAABT4/3rIwTAqEAcI/s1600/F1_Evolution_All_cars_small.jpg
fig 1. The evolution of meme, Sushi.
fig 2. Mutation of a video uploaded to YouTube 1000 times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icruGcSsPp0
fig 3. The Evolution of Useful Things. Henry Petroski, 1992. http://www.triz-jour-nal.com/archives/1999/09/b/
fig 4. Convergent evolution of middle stone age point styles 100k-60k years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mWE1R5xw
fig 5. Bower of a Bowerbird, an example of non-human ‘artificial’ creation/design
fig 6. [from left to right] Ur Leica by Oscar Barnack, 1913. World’s first digital camera by Kodak, 1975. 2012 Sony X100 digital camera is roughly the decendant of the two.
fig 7. [from left to right] red king crab is genetically a cousin of hermit crab, al-though its morphology resembles to snow crab much more.
fig 8. Marsupials resemble those of eutherian mammals, although they are far from them in the genetic chromosome map
fig 9. Metacarpal bone from vulture’s wing, stiffened after the manner of a Warren’s truss[right]. An example of truss generated by Finite Element Analysis structure optimization algorithm[left].
fig 10. Richard Dawkins’ Arthromorphs showing a simple example of interactive genetic algorithm(iGA). The parent you chose (middle) propagates eight similar, but different children around it.
fig 11. “It seems incredible that at one time the Bull Terrier was a handsome, athletic dog. Somewhere along its journey to a mutated skull and thick abdomen the bull terrier also picked up a number of other maladies like supernumer-ary teeth and compulsive tail-chasing.”(http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/: 2014-3-4)
fig 12. “The German Shepherd Dog is also a breed that is routinely mentioned when people talk about ruined breeds; maybe because they used to be awesome. In Dogs of All Nations, the GSD is described as a medium-sized dog (25 kg /55 lb), this is a far cry from the angulated, barrel-chested, sloping back, ataxic, 85-pounders (38 kg ) we are used to seeing in the conformation ring. There was a time when the GSD could clear a 2.5 meter (8.5 ft) wall, that time is long gone.”(http://dogbehaviorsci-ence.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/: 2014-3-4)
