On the other hand, I think Turing first suggested that animal coloration might turn out to be related to cellular automata. Sadly that's the kind of over-broad suggestion that turns out to be largely untrue, with possibly only a few exceptions. Mosty it's probably X-inactivation.
Cellular automatons occur everywhere in nature. We don't really have the technology to explore them; I do find myself wondering if there are automata sophisticated enough to support complex structures, hiding in the higher-order interactions, which are completely invisible to us...
Biology tends not to be much like the mathematical cellular automata; it's generally much messier. On the other hand, we're made up of lots of cells and all of those cells are just tiny machines following programs, so I guess it's true by definition. Still, it's nothing like the minimal automata everyone likes to play with.
Not Wolfram's way though.
I've been fascinated by Cellular Automata since I read Wolfram "A New Kind of Science", but I was not overly sold that you could model the universe in the way he described.
While I still think he was incredibly over-optimistic about the uses of cellular automata, I do wonder if after a number of years we'll find some more validation in nature.