This is a continuation of the previous conversation.

If it (a cell) doesn’t know anything then why is it "following a specific set of steps"?

And this is the misunderstanding, the personification of a cell. The sperm cell itself is the result of a multitude of previous steps undertaken by ancestral precursor cells. It’s not like building a car, one cell isn’t progressively built piece by piece and made into something else. It’s not like a cell decides to go into the "sperm line" to become a sperm cell over a liver cell or blood cell. Sperm cells are produced by means of spermatogenesis where one spermatogonium becomes four sperm cells. Spermatogonia are the self-replicating source cells for all sperm made. During this process, a series of biochemical reactions occur that guide the cells through their development. But it’s not active decision making. As I said before, it could be as simple as which daughter cell gets the majority of a signaling molecule inside the dividing cell. It’s no more a decision than a toy drinking bird always dipping back into the glass for more water. One thing to keep in mind, if a cell doesn’t follow the proper course of development, it will be exterminated.

Considering that result is viable with one species and not another, I’d say there’s recognition involved. – By the other species that is. So how does the egg of the other species know what’s right and wrong? Kinda weird how something so small knows what works and what doesn’t.

Wow It’s a stretch to say that because it doesn’t work in the end, recognition is occurring. If a fishing rod is unable to reel in line, is that a recognition by the fishing tool that something is wrong with the reeling mechanism? If a loaf of bread fails to rise, is that recognition by the bread that there wasn’t enough sugar in it to feed the yeast to make it rise? Trying something repeatedly and getting the same result each time is not recognition. The reason cross species fertilization won’t work is because the DNA templates do not match up, therefore, proper directions as to how the cell should begin dividing and developing do not occur. Basically, the recipe is wrong and has too many of some ingredients and not enough of others that are put into the mixing bowl at bad times. It’s not a matter of the embryo finding itself in the wrong place and deciding that it’s an abomination, it’s a matter of having the wrong developmental mechanisms turned on at the wrong time resulting in an unstable organism that eventually dies because of the bad directions. If the directions are good enough, the organism will survive to birth. Look at breeding tigers and lions. Two similar species, but able to make viable reproducing (sometimes) offspring. Other times, the organisms are sterile.

So you mean to tell me that there are little instructions on little sperm cells that have to find ways to work in tandem with other little itsy bitsy things. – How unreal is that? How totally unbelievably amazing?

In a word … yes! You stumbled onto this without much of any prior knowledge whatsoever! How cool eh?  Remember, a fully differentiated cell is one that is the result of many rounds of development stretching all the way to the point of fertilization. One cell, by using chemical and surface receptor signaling is able to become any cell in the body if given in the proper order and concentration. As a result, the surface of the cells are covered with proteins, sugars and lipids in the form of receptors and binding sites that read almost like a book as to where the cell has been and what biochemical processes it has undergone. So it’s not so much a set of instructions, although i think that stems from the fact that you insist on personifying cells, but more like a documentation of the life of that particular cell, a biography if you will. Unreal? Unbelievable? Believe it!

If this happens on such a microscopic scale everyday, then why is it so hard to understand that something so much smarter than us must have created it?

Not even microscopic, but nano and picoscopic. And it’s not that it’s so hard to understand a prime mover, it’s just that everything I’ve laid out is an explanation as to how certain things work, and is not evidence for or against God. It makes no hypothesis about that idea, so therefore is outside the explanation. Pointing at something and saying, "God did it" is nothing more than an explanation in itself anyways.

How can anybody dismiss this as random?

No one’s dismissing anything. It’s not a poor admission to be randomly guided, and it’s not any less of an explanation as to how something works.