> This is true. The evidence is that life on Earth began pretty
> much as soon as it could--within a few hundred million years.
I never said anything about the "origins" of life and make clear note of the existence of life prior to the Pre-Cambrian explosion. As I said, simple life as what is seen prior to the Pre-Cambrian explosion does not necessarily require the Moon, but it is generally agreed land based life forms as we know it could not have evolved without it.
> As far as the so-called Cambrian explosion goes, it was more an
> increase in size coupled with the evolution of hard shells and
> exoskeletons that made fossil preservation much more likely.
> Soft bodies don't fossilize well.
You are ignoring the known mass extinctions that directly preceded the Pre-Cambrian explosion, for one, but also, no one doubts that the Pre-Cambrian explosion occurred, the debate is over the existence, or lack there of, of sufficient intermediary forms directly preceding it. [burgess-shale.rom.on.ca]
> Excellent question. Since we can't observe rocky planets the
> size of Earth directly, we don't know YET whether or not other
> rocky exoplanets have moons. It's a good bet that some of them
> do, though.
But we can observe what is found in our solar system and make comparative analysis regarding the likelihood of proportionate size relative to its host which there is little doubt the Moon is unusually large among other things. It is comparable to Neptune having a moon the size of Earth. Unfortunately, it is likely not common rocky planets have moons [www.space.com]
making our our Moon even more serendipitous.
> We assume an awful lot because Earth and our solar system is
> really the only analogue we have. Our solar system may or may
> not be typical. We just don't know yet.
And do we not also "assume an awful lot" regarding other life in the Universe because humans are the only analogue we have?
> Absolutely agree. Given enough time, even the most seemingly
> impossible things can and will happen.
Like extraterrestrials terraforming Earth?
> Yep, and no matter what people think, the Moon is not hollow.
> It wouldn't be quite so easy to do. One false move and you'd
> send the Moon crashing into the Earth.
Nope. You are limiting your thinking to current technology. But regardless, I did not say the Moon was entirely hollow, didn't even mention "hollow", but there is very good evidence suggesting there are numerous hollow areas under the surface.