It also has to do with the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution through natural selection.
Is it really too much to ask that people know and understand the difference if they want to be taken seriously?
It also has to do with the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution through natural selection.
And if anything, it proves that that sort of abiogenesis is a dead end. The "junk" comes in when people try to claim that it showed a potential abiogenetic pathway.
Miller had to create an atmosphere for which, as it turns out, there is no evidence that it ever existed on this planet. He had to artificially trap the amino acids in one section of his apparatus. He only got a few of the twenty that are used in life forms, and the ones he did get were racemic mixtures, whereas lifeforms use only laevorotatory forms.
Even if we granted the presence of all the amino acids needed to build a particular protein, the fact remains that they aren't going to react spontaneously to do any such thing: all those polymerization reactions are reversible in the presence of water. Which means, they break up as well as join together, and just as easily.
You'd be as well off throwing a bucket of nickels in the air and betting that they all land heads-up as relying on such a "mechanism" as this to get life started. And Darwin has nothing to offer until you have something live that can reproduce itself.