It’s good that you have enough free time to raise such questions)) But seriously, to understand why you’d never get true objective answer you need to realize s

It’s good that you have enough free time to raise such questions)) But seriously, to understand why you’d never get true objective answer you need to realize something. The question itself contains 2 critical assumptions: 1. There’s objective cause-effect relationship embedded in the nature of reality (and therefore life). Imagine there’s no causality and all you see is just a correlation of events of different levels of certainty. Would this question make sense at all? And causality is nothing more than a model of the world in our human minds. A very good and practical one, but just a model. How do you expect to get good answer to a question outside of the model scope, but which make sense only within the model. 2. We as humans somehow can know or impose some ultimate goal for the life itself as though we were the ones who invented it in the lab. While in reality we’re just observers and a tiny piece of life we know of. We have no real control of the process itself, and we’ll never know how it really started unless someone external will show us. But then still we will have no reference point to know for sure if this someone is not just another form of the same life trying to fool us. Etc. So anyway, this question (in its ultimate form) is deeply meaningful, because it implies the answer which lies outside of the system making the question possible in the first place. Answer “there’s no point” is also wrong. For the same reasons. May be there is. May be someone created it on purpose, but again we will never know this for sure, at least with existing methods of “knowing”