Fetal Development

The First Two Cells in a Human Embryo Contribute Disproportionately to Fetal Development | The Scientist Magazine® (the-scientist.com)

A lot of information driving these processes

Did you know fetuses grow tails?

Strong evidence for Common Ancestory there.

Fetuses grow, period, two cells become, one, and then all of the information in that one cell becomes a living being. Now consider how much information processing is taking place at an incredible rate of change, all of the error checking taking place, all of the forms and features that are in development that take that one cell in the case of a human someone who thinks, feels, with various bodily features. The rate of change is very fast, and yet you think it can be tweaked along the way over time, and not screw up the end where life comes out healthy?

"two cells become, one, and then all of the information in that one cell becomes a living being"

That's to simplify a very complicated process but let's remember that life first emerged about 3.7 billion years ago. However, sexual reproduction only emerged about 2 billion years ago or less, so for roughly half the time life has existed it reproduced asexually.

Puzzling as life is, when I try to make sense of why any creator would go about the process in the way we now believe it happened, I simply can't. There's nothing in human science or philosophy that rules out the possibility that purely natural processes can bring about such an outcome.

3.7 billion years is a long time, but that doesn't help timing issues. If you believe a one-cell life was the first life, then what happened next, what was the next lifeform?

It may take a decade, a century or even longer to answer such questions but I'm not aware it's a vitally important question to answer.

In the meantime, if a process appears in all other ways to be a natural one (the timescales involved certainly suggest this), it most probably is.

If you can only hope there was an original one-cell creature what had to have been the next one is unimportant? How many cells do you think the next one had?

Hope isn't involved! It's accepted that there was a single-celled common ancestor toall life. It was living because it was able to replicate itself, so we can be confident that its offspring were very similar to the original.

Then after a mere 2000,000,000 years, one cell created offspring that consisted of two or more cells.

I understand it is commonly BELIEVED that one cell life was the first, though no one can come up with any explanation on how nonliving chemicals could come together to form a cell and start life, we even have a difficult time defining life. My question wasn't about the first cell, I understand the common belief, but what was NEXT a two-cell creature exactly how does that work?

"how does that work?" - no idea. Why don't you do some background research, or get hold of a book, to find out why since you keep asking the same question over and over?

I ask because the answers never come from those who claim to know how it happened without being able to explain any rational reason why or how.

You're asking about very complicated concepts in Biology which most of us here cannot answer.

That's why you'd be better doing your own research?

I've done research and I'm wondering why it is you have not done enough to talk to the basics when it comes to developing functionally complex specified processes.

"I've done research" - where, in the Book of Genesis?

Joking aside, I might go and study for a degree in Physics if it was vitally important to me to understand the minute details of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics but I don't plan to do so.

Neither do I plan to study Biology at advanced level in order to gain some insight into how cell biology developed. It's extremely complicated! I do however trust those who are qualified and who carry out the research to understand this much better than I do.

It troubles me not in the least that I have so little understanding of this subject. What I do believe is that we see entirely natural processes throughout all of nature and that also applies to life and its evolution.

System integration is the basics of building anything specifically functionally complex and doesn't require biological or physics, but setting up a system that has integrated parts and systems covers the basics. You can do it by learning coding which is the manipulation of information for information processing.

Biologists seek much the same I think? But in the case of Biology the processes involved are natural ones.

Natural ones are what is taking place in a normative fashion, and unless you invoke a circular argument you cannot declare a mindless undirected process could do what people claim evolution does from dead dirt to all of the variety of life we see today.

So you keep insisting.....

Show your work, prove your point, explain your process.

I'm under no obligation to - research into the naturalistic beginnings of life carries on and I await developments with interest. There's nothing about life that forces the conclusion that it could not have come into existence by purely natural means.

If there was, Biologists would have reached that conclusion already.