What is the point to evolution if it all goes back to nothing?

Asking why it goes back to nothing? is only a valid question if there is a final cause that directs it back to nothing. It is legitimate to ask, why did you go back home after work? because people do things for a reason. The reason for a person's action is the final cause of the action. Final causes are the goals that we wish our actions to achieve. If you want to rest, your desire / intension to rest is a final cause. You go home because you wish to satisfy this final cause. Now, ask why a mudslide brought down a pile of rocks onto a mountain road and you get a much different type of answer: you get an answer involving efficient causes. An explanation involving the efficient cause of a mudslide will involve rain causing erosion that loosens boulders from the mountain side and gravity causes them to slide down. Now, what is the point of the mudslide? There is no point because there is no final cause. That is, there is no intention that brought it about. (Note that I am not implying that it is random, just that it was not brought about by a final cause.) As for their being a point to life in general, that is an open question. We cannot assume that there is some final cause behind it or else we beg the question. Similarly, we cannot assume that there is no final cause. The principle of Occam's razor seems to be able to go both ways on this question. Creation is a pretty simple answer to state, but it makes a big assumption: God the creator. A bottom up evolution involving quantum particles that desire to express themselves in novel ways and eventually evolve into cellular organisms is less easy to understand, but it doesn't require a supernatural origin. Indeed, it is no more speculative than are suggestions about the also unseen (but inferentially suggested) Higgs Boson--the particle that the CERN Large Hadron Collider is looking for. Perhaps there is a God shaped hole precisely at the origin of life in the universe. If so, we might have reason to suspect that there is a God that can act as the missing organization and direction that we seem to observe in nature. Even if there is such a God, there is no reason to make the leap that such a God must be the God of the Bible, for such a God seems more likely (and less speculatively) to be the God of Deism.