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...

Single entity where? On the planetary surface, all the way through a
given planetary system, or universally? At some scales, a breakdown
into independent organisms is necessary. I can see treating it as an
organism within a single biosphere, or withing a single evolutionary
history, but you'll have to deal with the thorny question of how far
this organism extends in time before we have to call it a different
one: the same problem that haunts the idea of chronospecies....

Tom Hendricks wrote:

Life can be defined as that which persists via copying.