I don't know.

I think that it is very probable that if life had emerged on Earth in the absence of Luna, then it would have been exposed to far more variable conditions. For example, the moon has a major influence in maintaining our axis of rotation in a reasonably stable direction. There is reason to suspect that the planet might tumble far more often and vigorously then we are used to at present.

Then again, lunar cycles have profound effects on many biological processes. This has led to the argument that life without the moon could hardly survive. For my part that does not seem logical, because biological lunar cycles are adaptations to exploit the physical lunar cycles. If life had emerged in the absence of lunar cycles it simply would not have adapted to them.

In short, I see no reason, either why life on this planet should be untenable without the moon, nor even why it should be drastically different from what we are used to, except in matters of detail such as tidal and other moon-related cycles.

Life originated in the sea. The land was completely barren until forms of life evolved at the water margins which could exploit the additional light and nutrients without completely drying out.

I take the view that the tides (which has a greater range then because the moon was closer) created a wide marginal area that flooded frequently and left clean rock pools, flushing away any waste products.

Without the tides rising and falling, I believe that life would not have evolved to leave the sea, because there would have been no transitional space to exploit. No flying insects, no birds, no mammals.

This has already been answered, "no more moon" its in the book does anything eat wasps. Have a search for it:p