Even if you distilled the purpose of living things down to their most basic mathmatical objective, you would still be wrong. At it's very core the so called raison d'être of living things is to assist in the long term survival of their species. Even for something like a virus which doesn't even really meat all the basic criteria to be called "living", overwhelming and killing the host before the virus has a chance to spread is in every way a failure.

Even better is that this argument, the "most fundamental purpose", when applied to humanity actually means that the "aberrations" that fundamentalists hate most are actually an integral part of the system. LGBTQ+ and the neurodiverse (ADHD, autism, ect) all benefit the growth of the species. Having members that contribute to the strength of the species, who can fight, gather, and assist with the offspring of others without creating their own competitive offspring is a massive advantage when resources are limited. The fact that those same noncompetitive (offspring wise) members can breed if something disastrous happens to the rest of the breeding stock is such a brilliant design that it makes a lot more sense to use that as an argument for "intelligent design" rather than the other shit that is usually dragged out. As for the neurodivergent, having members that think differently and are driven to try things that would be considered outside of normal range is really the only option for growth once the "normal" resources reach capacity.

So, if your argument at this point is that humanity should have all transitioned to be LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent, then maybe you aren't doing it completely wrong, but I am still not sure that is really the answer either.