Thank you for coming to my aid, Thal!
Can you be anymore of a quote mine? Dawkin's statements about "not being 100% sure" (I've read his stuff) is about probabilistic uncertainty, which has to do with the epistemological barrier between what we perceive and what is "reality." In short, his position (like most scientists) is that you can't be absolutely certain about anything ever. It has nothing to do with our conversation. Now you know why statistics is a big deal.
You made a claim:
I know the objective purpose of humanity.
I asked for substantiation.
You showed that you were incapable of separating between objectivity and subjectivity, I won't even get to the crux of your reasoning skills. A well seasoned bullshitter would have at least started off with a premise...
Thal's comment has nothing to do with it. Dawkins knows the theory of evolution works (i think you might have confused him Darwin...ToE is not Dawkin's), since you know, it has been conclusively affirmed by linnaean taxonomy, phylogenetics, geological records, fossil records, DNA analysis, and it is the very foundation of modern medicine. You don't even know that God exists (unless you're willing to challenge me on that), the premise needed for your conclusion about objective purpose.
Quote-mining is intellectually dishonest, then again deflection seems to be the only trick you have when people challenge your beliefs.

Oh well. Again, gotta try harder buddy.