Should we consider the evolution of life the evolution of matter?

An interesting question.

I've posed a similar question to a biologist and got blanked out. I don't think anyone wants to consider questions along this line of thought it opens up too many boxes.

I think you've missed an important point, evolution is equally dependent on conciousness as consciousness creates sensations, living things evolve colour as either a warning or defence or to attract but colour only exists to conciousness, the same is for all sensations.

It would be fair to assume that both matter and consciousness are evolving together.

Is it really a case that matter is becoming concious or is conciousness creating the idea of matter. The truth may turn out to be different than we expect. I am neither wave or particle

What you say is a very couched or nuanced statement; it has mirrors in essentialism, information theories, as well as theories of robotics or modularity.

When we ask the question of 'what are we made of' the answer very often is matter, but less frequently will someone broach the question of whether it is dynamic matter. Although atomically many take it to be dynamic, I think I'm in agreement with you that in the cosmic scheme of things not everyone accepts that matter is dynamic---that it would evolve.

There are the beginnings of this kind of theory in the work of Alfred North Whitehead, but I find it perplexing how little detail he gets into.

A scientist might point out that there are several problems with the statement that matter can evolve. For example, do we mean sentient matter? And at that point, it can be argued that sentience is merely a property that emerges out of a certain degree of complex constituency. Against that argument is the argument of a certain degree of redundancy in the concept of matter in explaining sentience---don't we mean sentient matter, or for a given type of matter x, then 'x of matter' etc.? This seems to reduce matter to an absurdity, because afterall properties may be completely opposite.

It seems that what I am arguing here, however, is not in support of the evolution of matter either, although it looks like an advanced theory. On the opposite end of the scientific argument via the argument of redundancy is the argument of essentialism, that in spite of all appearances, what we find is merely 'what we find as such'; In other words, there is no obligation for life to be explanatory in its properties.

What I find is this leads to an inevitable abstraction of science. From that high vantage point we can argue specifically: "Is matter evolution?", "Is evolution material?" These answers clarify that ultimately neither concept holds the kind of universalism that would open it to a parallel comparison of the type you propose.

Other people have wondered if the universe is conscious and that we humans are the most aware component.

Isaac Asimov, considered by some as the greatest science-fiction writer of all time, inserted this common consciousness into his stories. He wrote short stories for magazines, and books. In time, some of those stories coalesced into the Foundation Series books, where he tells the future of the humanity, from a future with robots, space colonization, and finally, a takeover by that universal consciousness.

Perhaps you may enjoy reading those stories. I think they have aged well, in the sense that they can still engage a new reader; you cannot say that for many writers. The Wikipedia contains an article on the Foundation Series (there are other places), and you may find out whether the books warrant your time.

We could, but if you examine your post carefully, you'll see that no worthwhile information was conveyed.

Rather than get all excited about data, why not ponder on "what's the point?" Your post has no point. Hence, no information worthy of getting excited about.

Think if I just told you the data of my day. All the events that took place. Eventually, you would get pretty frustrated with me and blurt out "What is the point? Why are you boring me with this?!"

And what if I said in response "Hey, I think it's pretty incredible that I had some breakfast, took a shower, got dressed, put on my shoes, went to the library, came home, had some lunch, went to the bathroom, blah blah blah."

You would look at me in the same way I'm looking at your post right now.

I consider it to be more of an evolution of how matter interacts with each other, not necessarily of matter itself. Or, we could look at it in the sense that matter is not evolving so much as growing; similar to the way a baby grows (evolves) into an adult. Huh, weird.

This is the point we need to resolve can inorganic matter come all the way from gases to rocks to consciousness

Evolution is a myth.

Yes we should.