The fault in your logic is your failure to account for the extrordinary difference in timescales involved in the creation of tablets and ferns.
It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin was a geologist by training. At the time, geology was a relativly new discipline, and the first line of scientific inquiry that demanded any concept of deep time. Its development signaled the dawning realization that the Earth was a lot older than anyone had previously guessed ("possibly a billion years" speculated Charles).
Acquiring an accurate measure of the timescales on which geological events played out is what set the stage for an evolutionary theory of life's development. Indeed, the theory of evolution is virtually inconceivable in the absence of these scales.
Obviously not. And that's for the simple reason that the theory of evolution describes living things. As I'm sure you know, a tablet is not a living thing. Therefore, the theory of evolution doesn't even try to account for its appearance.
Of course, people talk about the evolution of inanimate objects all the time. But most of them are aware that they're using the term loosely, and not it its proper scientific sense. In other words, when people talk about the "evolution" of tablets, they are not asserting that new tablets are the product of existing tablets having sex with each other and producing little baby tablets which ship themselves to retail outlets when they're all grown up and ready for sale. Rather, they are speaking metaphorically, and describing a process which, in many ways, looks like evolution.
Nevertheless, the incremental development of tablets is not actual evolution any more than a person wearing a lion costume is an actual lion. I hope this clears things up
"So what you are saying is that given enough time and some random events my tablet could actually come to existance all by itself?"
Well, no. But there is nothing in the natural world that we know of that is implausible for development over the time scales involved.
Which is really separate from the point here, that the various fractal and fractal-like structures is that complex looking behavior and structure can emerge from very simple rule or encoding.
It's worth remembering that Charles Darwin was a geologist by training. At the time, geology was a relativly new discipline, and the first line of scientific inquiry that demanded any concept of deep time. Its development signaled the dawning realization that the Earth was a lot older than anyone had previously guessed ("possibly a billion years" speculated Charles).
Acquiring an accurate measure of the timescales on which geological events played out is what set the stage for an evolutionary theory of life's development. Indeed, the theory of evolution is virtually inconceivable in the absence of these scales.