The Millers experiments are not evidence for evolution. Some people argue that the results support a hypothesis known as ABIOGENESIS, which basically says that the first chemical replicators were formed by natural processes. The idea assumes that the very first steps in the formation of primitive life forms did not involve any magic tricks by some unknown super-being. Scientists like to find the simplest natural explanation for phenomena, not some crazy complicated, off-the-wall, outlandish, fantastic, unlikely explanation for which there is no evidence. After the first replicators formed, then evolution was possible. The theory of evolution requires that characteristics are reproduced in offspring. The distribution of characteristics, height, strength, speed etc. varies over time giving rise to different life forms in different environments. If you throw a million dice on the floor, then remove all the ones that didn't show a six, then throw those, repeatedly, eventually you'll get a million sixes. That is a rough analogy for the theory of evolution, a theory that has been accepted by most scientists since about 1870. A scientific theory is not some random idea and it never contains miracles. Scientists are pretty strict about that. There is still a Flat Earth Society and the members meet regularly, presumably to discuss new evidence that the earth is flat. Creationists also have meetings.
The Chicken and Egg puzzle is easily solved. An egg on its own wouldn't survive as it is necessary for a chicken to sit on it to keep it warm. Therefore the chicken came first.
A BBC program called QI called it as the egg came first. Sorry can't recall series or episode Going on the line birds came from dinosaurs who laid eggs. The eggs formed inside (obvious) before being laid Instead of dinosaurs hatching birds started to emerge Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!