No offense, but wasn't your advisor on the FMO complex coherence train for the longest time before they found another chromophore[1] that rendered many coherence projections spurious?
There has been plenty of hype about quantum coherence in photosynthesis, too, which I have played a part in debunking [1]. It is clear (in my opinion) that quantum coherent motion not play a large role in energy transfer in photosynthesis, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not it plays a small role or none at all.
Part of the answer may depend on how "coherence" is defined. I do have a number of objections to the conclusions drawn in the paper discussed in the blog post you link to (about the 8th chromophore). For more details, you can see a paper I wrote a few years ago [2]. I don't agree with the interpretation that "The energy transfer is incoherent in the native complex." This is still a rather large point of contention among scholars in this field.
The differences between quantum computing in the brain and quantum coherence in photosynthesis are actually rather large. There is actual, essentially undisputed evidence for quantum coherence in photosynthesis (in the experiments). There is a real scientific process going on with interactions between experiment/theory. Moreover, the people who did the over-hyped experiments a few years ago that were published in Nature/Science have moved on from claiming it is "quantum computing in biology" when further evidence and analyses came out against it. Hameroff and Penrose seem to be sticking to their original ideas even though they have been thoroughly debunked.
[1]http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-mat...