Damien, what do you say to people who try to use things like the Fibonacci sequence as scientific evidence of a creator, as I was told its Gods Fingerprint→ The Fibonacci Sequence – Golden Ratio?

So my responce, well the “Fibonacci Sequence” – is Math, and like all math they explain factors in or of nature but they are descriptive of occurrence or observation they don’t tell you a thing like magic created them and to say so is both a science and math ignorance, because magic is evident nowhere is nature and every believed magic has been shown to be only nature devoid of anything magic. if the term god is no different than nature devoid of magic then its use is a unwarranted redundancy as we more justifiably can call it nature letting the god theory be a thing of child stories where such nonsense belongs.

According to Donald E. Simanek in an article: “Fibonacci Flim-Flam” 

Fibonacci Foolishness: a search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature. You will find fantastic claims:

  • The “golden rectangle” is the “most beautiful” rectangle, and was deliberately used by artists in arranging picture elements within their paintings. (You’d think that they’d always use golden rectangle frames, but they didn’t.)
  • The patterns based on the Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and the golden rectangle are those most pleasing to human perception.
  • Mozart used φ in composing music. (He liked number games, but there’s no good evidence that he ever deliberately used φ in a musical composition.)
  • The Fibonacci sequence is seen in nature, in the arrangement of leaves on a stem of plants, in the pattern of sunflower seeds, spirals of snail’s shells, in the number of petals of flowers, in the periods of planets of the solar system, and even in stock market cycles. So pervasive is the sequence in nature (according to these folks) that one begins to suspect that the series has the remarkable ability to be “fit” to most anything!
  • Nature’s processes are “governed” by the golden ratio. Some sources even say that nature’s processes are “explained” by this ratio.

Of course much of this is patently nonsense. Mathematics doesn’t “explain” anything in nature, but mathematical models are very powerful for describing patterns and laws found in nature. I think it’s safe to say that the Fibonacci sequence, golden mean, and golden rectangle have never, not even once, directly led to the discovery of a fundamental law of nature. When we see a neat numeric or geometric pattern in nature, we realize we must dig deeper to find the underlying reason why these patterns arise.

It’s not difficult to find examples of most any pattern or mathematical relation you want. Then some people make the mistake of supposing this reveals some mystical governing principle in nature. This is reinforced by ignoring equally important cases that don’t fit the pattern. If the fit isn’t very good, approximate or fudge the numbers. If some things remain that ought to fit but don’t, just rationalize a reason why they are “special cases”.

  • The areas of mathematically similar objects are proportional to the square of their linear dimensions, their volumes are proportional to the cube of their linear dimensions. Gravitational and electric field strengths obey an inverse square relation to distance. Radiation intensity obeys an inverse square relation to distance from a point source. All of these have an underlying reason: the geometry of the universe is very nearly Euclidean, and therefore these results are dictated by that geometric fact. It doesn’t suggest there’s anything mystical about the powers “2” and “3”.
  • The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle, π, pops up in formulas for many geometric relations about round objects. A favorite obsession of numerologically-inclined folk is to look for π in man-made structures such as the Pyramids of Egypt. Look and ye shall find—if you are willing to select data and fudge a bit.
    • The five regular Pythagorean solids have faces of similar shape, either triangles, squares or pentagons. These are also known as the “Platonic solids”. The tetrahedron, octahedron, cube, icosahedron and dodecahedron have 4, 8, 6, 12 and 20 faces respectively. There are no other such solids. Only one of these, 8, is a Fibonacci number. Johannes Kepler, when still in the mystical mode of thought, tried to fit these numbers to regular polyhedra to “explain” the orbital sizes of the planets. He had to fudge things too much to fit his model to reality so he wisely abandoned the project. Only when he rid himself of mystical correspondences was he able to formulate a mathematically correct set of three laws of planetary motion. These laws implicitly embodied what we now know as the conservation of angular momentum.
    • The reason φ shows up in nature has to do with constraints of geometry upon the way organisms grow in size. Irrational numbers (those that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers) are often revealed in this process. The well-known irrationals are √2, φ, e, π and any multiples or products of them. To make matters more interesting, these are related. For example, phi is φ = (√5 – 1)/2. And the Euler relation, e = -1 relates e, i and π where i ≡ √(-1). The natural processes that display irrationals are not governed or caused by φ in order to achieve some desired purpose or result, but rather they are constrained by the geometry of the universe and the limitations imposed by that geometry on growth processes.

    Folks addicted to mystical mathematics are really motivated by a belief that there’s something “magical” about certain combinations of numbers. They are obsessive pattern seekers. Pattern recognition can be a useful trait, if not carried to the point of believing that every perceived pattern represents something profound or mystical. Some patterns in nature are significant, but many are purely accidental (patterns in tea-leaves, for example) and have no deeper meaning or significance.

For the detaled explanation go to: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

 

Fibonacci Sequence

The Fibonacci Sequence is the series of numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, …

The next number is found by adding up the two numbers before it. Reference

Moreover to even pose such a question like the Fibonacci sequence as scientific evidence of a creator, starts with the preexisting flawed belief in a creator.

Think of how others factors would remove such a ridiculous notion as an intelligent creator.

History of life on the Earth witnessed five mass extinctions of species as a result of natural calamities. As of today, taxonomists have already described nearly 2 million species, although in fact their number varies, according to various estimates, from 5 to 100 million. But 90 to 99 percent of species ever existing on the planet have already become extinct. The overwhelming majority vanished as a result of the so-called normal or background extinction due to the limited period of biological species existence, which fluctuates from 1 million years with mammals through 11 million years with some marine invertebrates. Besides the background extinction, the fauna experienced five mass extinctions, as a result of which 50 to 95 percent of then existing species disappeared within a limited historical period. The first mass extinction occurred 440 million years ago, at the end of Ordovic, as a result of temperature fall and the ocean level lowering. The second wave took place during the late Devonian, again due to temperature fall and sea reliction. During the third wave of extinction, at the end of Permian, approximately 250 million years ago, 95 percent of marine species and nearly 70 percent of terrestrial ones disappeared. The catastrophe was probably caused by active reconstruction of the earth’s crust and change of climate during formation of the supercontinent Pangaea. The forth extinction happened in the late Trias, and the fifth one – the most renowned extinction – hit 65 million years ago. Reference