Should life be defined as a single entity or a collection of species and
independent organisms. Either way can be valid. Light is considered both
wave and particle. And to accept one or the other definitions of life is not
science, it's assuming without proof.

I say it's best to consider both and see what we can learn and see if we can
get more accuracy from that. I also think both work in reality.

Let's look at what insight looking at life as a single entity might give.
Perhaps it can even suggest novel ways to investigate the origin of life.

Life as a Single Entity:
1. Not replication but replenish and repair. So there is no need for a
replicator or a moment when replication began. No need for a fluke event or
a pop and adapt scenario. Instead we should look for repair mechanisms that
overall support the stability of all life.
2. Not evolution as competition between species or symbiotic development.
Instead evolution is steps for the single entity of life to better adapt and
stabilize in its environment. And through that process even gain some
control over the environment for even better survival. Note the Gaia ideas
here.
3. Not metabolism but energy to adapt collective life to its planetary
environment. This was forced energy from the environment (sun heat cycle
etc.) that led to a chemical reaction so stable that it was able to use the
forced energy for work and development and further stability in that
environment.
4. Not individual genomes, but one single genetic pool whose member genes
through trial and error, help stabilize the entire genome.
5. No fluke origin of species, moments. But instead an obvious continual
reaction to the environment that forces a 'selection' throughout all parts
of the single entity of life - that collectively makes it more stable in its
planetary environment.

Therefore if we look at life as a single entity or single chemical reaction
to the environment, it may give us fresh incite to what life is and how it
began.

Thoughts?

Tom Hendricks