writing

the p-zombie is a thought experiment, not something that should 'actually exist'. the fact that a p-zombie is impossible intuitively is the point, it demonstrates that our experiential mental life is an important part of our thought, that something we cannot reduce to information processing has a real impact on our lives and thought processes. the reason a 'mechanistic' description of consciousness won't ever satisfy the 'p-zombie crowd' (serious academic philosophers, just as credible as the ones you might agree with) is that the entire point of the philosophical zombie is that there is something about consciousness that is non-physical, or that is not yet captured by what we currently call physics or information-processing. any task you can set a computer to perform is definitionally a information-processing task, and the point of the philosophical zombie thought experiment is to demonstrate the difference between information-processing (which we more or less understand) and first person, internal experience of that information processing. there are no proposed physical descriptions of that experiential quality of human mental existence, and no even hypothetical ways to reduce it to physical processes. if you don't think the 'hard problem' exists, then show your work - prove it, in a way that doesn't just assume that our experience of our minds 'doesn't exist' (then what are we experiencing?) or is 'illusory' (an illusion for the benefit of what? what is being decieved with this illusion?)

evolution did not intentionally 'create' anything, you are anthropomorphizing a random, chaotic, unconscious (as far as we know) process. human scientific methods may not start with a complete theory of anything, but no one went from not knowing what electricity was to immediately having a nuclear power plant - the material conditions of the possible experiments and the superstructure associated (the theories such experiments might imply or discover) both drive scientific process. saying 'well evolution did it so we can too, and faster' is just foolish beyond belief.

no one doubts that computers can replicate more or less all the information processing aspects of human cognition, but no scientist can tell you why we have a first person experience of our information processing, not yet anyway. we can correlate any number of experiences to brain states, but we have yet to comprehensively explain how those brain states and structures produce subjectivity. Its unfalsifiable because it is literally not a 'scientific' or 'physical' question, science and physics were simply not created or designed to inquire into the source of their own creation - a logical system can never accurately and fully analyze itself - this has been rigourously and mathematically proven as by godel's incompleteness theorems. you can complain this is 'unfalsifiable' but so is literal matter - the way we define 'matter' as 'whatever corresponds to the current prevailing system of physics at the moment' (this definition is implied by standard concepts of science and physics) leaves 'materialism' (in the ontological sense, not the marxist sense) only trivially true. Any property, even consciousness or mind or god or the flying spaghetti monster, can be considered material, if one defines matter as having that property. there is no experiment that can prove that all the phenomena and properties we experience and catalogue empirically are 'really matter' or 'really mind', we can prove the empirical observations but whether 'reality' is 'made of' 'matter' or 'mind' is unfalsifiable no matter which position you take.

the following is from the wikipedia entry on 'materialism'

Defining "matter"

The nature and definition of matter—like other key concepts in science and philosophy—have occasioned much debate:[33]

Is there a single kind of matter (hyle) that everything is made of, or are there multiple kinds?
Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism)[34] or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)?[35]
Does matter have intrinsic properties (substance theory)[36] or lack them (prima materia)?

One challenge to the conventional concept of matter as tangible "stuff" came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. In contrast, the Standard Model of particle physics uses quantum field theory to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field[37].[citation needed]

According to the dominant cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, less than 5% of the universe's energy density is made up of the "matter" the Standard Model describes, and most of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, with little agreement among scientists about what these are made of.[38]

With the advent of quantum physics, some scientists believed the concept of matter had merely changed, while others believed the conventional position could no longer be maintained. Werner Heisenberg said: "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible...atoms are not things."[39]

The concept of matter has changed in response to new scientific discoveries. Thus materialism has no definite content independent of the particular theory of matter on which it is based. According to Noam Chomsky, any property can be considered material, if one defines matter such that it has that property.[40]

The philosophical materialist Gustavo Bueno uses a more precise term than matter, the stroma.[41]