I read that same line, but came to the opposite conclusion than you. I didn’t find it amazing at all, instead I found it banal. Essentially the author is sayin

I read that same line, but came to the opposite conclusion than you. I didn’t find it amazing at all, instead I found it banal. Essentially the author is saying that fern leaf doesn’t grow as single line, and then subdivides. Well, no shit. Literally no one ever thought that. It betrays a lack of imagination where the author is conflating a single algorithm for the construction of a fractal to an actual fractal shape. It’s the same as complaining that something similar to a Sierpinski’s Triangle can’t be a fractal because it wasn’t made by placing atoms at the midpoints between it and a randomly selected exterior vertex. Are fern leaves technically fractals? No. (And no, I am not talking about the sophomoric objection then lacking infinite regression.) Are they similar to fractals? Yes. Is it useful as an illustration of both a feactal, and how complex body plans can be encoded in DNA without actually specifying every point like a literal blueprint? Yes. None of this is different than the discussing the similarities fractals and coastlines. No one thinks Britain is a literal fractal. Honestly, this idea of fractals is very similar to the idea that the irrational number phi shows up it nature. When you actually look deeply at the purported examples, you’ll find out, it’s not actually there.