Starting with the fact that I'm a real scientist, and I did make that claim, as I believe most real scientists that I know would also claim, that rather shows your last statement was disproved before you even typed it.
You may choose to believe that sapient and sentient species do not exist. I, however, believe otherwise. I take their apparent existence as being sufficient proof that they do indeed exist. As I've said, I really don't get into all of that existentialist nonsense aka philosophy.
Can you not see that you simply 'begged the question' as to whether you and your stated belief that 'most real scientists you know' (fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted) are, in fact, real scientists? A scientist relies on observation and testing. There is simply no way to scientifically observe and test the claim that 'evolution resultd in sapient and sentient species'. You pile fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy and claim it is 'science'. It is not. That is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
"You may choose to believe that sapient and sentient species do not exist."
Another strawman fallacy where you try to imply what I may believe. As I said, fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy.
"As I've said, I really don't get into all of that existentialist nonsense aka philosophy."
The fact is that philosophy and logical fallacy are the bulk of your position.