Reality is more complex and has fundamental aspects that anyone can tune in to, eventually. The moon and Earth system is an artificial system. It could not possibly emerge from "random" chance.
You want a far deeper rabbit hole of truth. Study the language of DNA (ACGT) and its codon arrangements that lead to functional and specific biological proteins.
*The likelihood by pure statistics for DNA to "randomly" emerge in the universe and develop into complex biological lifeforms via functional proteins development...
Is less than 10^40,000.*
This is statistically smaller than the squared number of estimated protons, neutrons, and electrons in *estimated* history of the *observable* universe.
Bottom line. What designed biological life was by all means and definitions, a supreme super intelligence that was able to foresee a trillion squared outcomes and designed the language of DNA to become theoretically a nearly infinite number of lifeforms with specific functions and adaptations. So many outcomes that it makes the total estimated number of particles in the known universe (which is not the entire universe), look trivial. Omniscience.
The rabbit hole goes deeper when you then look at how human beings may have come into being, and the evidence that we were subsequently given accelerated evolution by shortening the lifespan with left hand twist DNA cancers and capping the telomeres at a specific length. If these intelligences or omni-intelligence wanted it could have designed humans to be biologically immortal via complex DNA codon and protein synthesis and algorithms. Humanity is an experiment.
And we are being watched at each stage of our development.
Creating and moving stars and planets and moons is trivial by comparison.
One of the few rational explanations for these observations, is that reality is some kind of simulated (created and designed ) realm in which one or some beings have a greater understanding of it. They want us to notice

The real problem with divisions of species isn't that they are just guidelines, but that nobody can agree on the rules. Evolutionary biologists have proposed almost 30 different species definitions (called "species concepts") over the years, and none of them apply to all organisms. For example, the "no fertile offspring" definition is a paraphrase of one of the most popular species concepts called the Biological Species Concept (BSC), which actually states that a species is "a population or group of populations reproductively isolated from other such groups". "Reproductively isolated" in this case can mean "no fertile offspring", but it can also mean "they never encounter each other" or "they don't see each other as potential mates". The problems with the BSC are: 1. it doesn't work for organisms that reproduce asexually, 2. lots of organisms we would otherwise call different species have hybrids from time to time, and 3. reproductive isolation is actually really difficult to test (many organisms will hybridize in captivity but almost never in nature). As I said, there's like 30 more definitions of species that have been proposed, and most of them are slight modifications of other species concepts to fix problems with them (and introducing new problems lol). Some researchers have tried to come up with a definition that unifies all these different definitions (e.g. "a species is an independently-evolving metapopulation lineage"), but unified definitions fall apart because they're almost impossible to apply in the real world (how do you determine if something is "independently-evolving" or part of a metapopulation?).

>>935907523
don't care