Is scalable growth the main reason why Darwinian systems select Fibonacci sequences?

Question

The other day I was thinking about evolution of multi-cellular organisms, and why from the earliest onset of the development of communal cellular structure building, life may have selected a simplest possible strategy for building scale-able structures.We humans employ relatively complex mathematics and measuring tapes to engineer structures, and we build them to full size, or modular so they assemble. We like proportionality, and there are strength and weight considerations associated with it, but we are not entirely ruled by these considerations. But it maybe that life is far more dependent on proportionality considerations. Life grows sequentially from a single cell, and each cell possesses both the building machinery, and what must be a relatively simple genetic program to govern growth. Because the generic programming operates on the basis of individual cells, there is conceivably a limit to the complexity of program you can expect life to be employing. And even if genetic coding is capable of tremendous complexity, life’s still going to select the simplest most effective approach. So how does lifes growth system achieve such consistently proportional results?The answer may reveal itself, when you try to conceive of a building method that achieves the same outcome life does. That is to say, building a small scale structure, that will later scale up to full size through a growth cycle, and maintain a proportionality. If for example you build a small scale brick building, whereby the bricks can replicate and divide like living cells. Then so long as each brick does so at an overall synchronous rate, starts with select proportions and follows a very simple program governing growth that abides a proportionality which stays constant at all scales. Like the Fibonacci series rectangle does. Then the building can be scaled up through a smooth growth cycle while remaining structurally proportional. What you start with will determine your end result. And most importantly, having used a minimalistic coding system.So what’s interesting, is that this is potentially a sound reasoning for why Fibonacci series emerges from such a fundamental level within Darwinian life. Life in the oceans subsisted as single celled organisms, but as soon as it started experimenting with multi-cellular structures, it needed to solve these issues of scale-able growth.If this is correct, then it opens a fascinating window on a process of early life. Who knows what types of biological evolutionary insights might be derived from it. Does this scenario sound plausible to more people than just me?

Answer 1

I like your way of thinking. 4 dimensional and abstract. Think about Fibonacci coming out of evolution (which did it first). Remember, the theory of evolution is a workable theory that molds itself to fit the undeniable occurrence of Evolution over time.

Also remember that there was more than one step from single to multicellular organism. First, bacteria to eukaryotic cell (theoretically by engulfing other bacteria to form the nucleus and/or mitochondria). Then theres commensals, aggregates and finally sponges which start to differentiate cellular functions within the whole organism. Those early steps didn't appear to be geometric, but our knowledge is limited.

Early developing complex oceanic creatures (invertebrates) like jellyfish and their kin, while having radial symmetry, lacked the need for structurally stable Fibonacci-esqe development really until hard shells were necessary for survival in an ever increasingly competitive oceanic food chain. Remember, a lot of the bizarre occurrences of the Cambrian explosion didn't display much more than radial or bilateral symmetry.

Again, keep thinking along these lines. Its your kind of mindset that the future of evolutionary studies need to keep fresh. I encourage you in your pursuits.

Dr. Stephen J. P.