That article is just the same old same old whirlwind in a junkyard argument. > What Pasteur showed was that life, in the form of grubs or flies, do not emerge by spontaneous generation. He did not show that chiral molecules cannot emerge from series of series of chemical reactions over long time periods and under many changing environmental conditions. Once life was established, using molecules of particular chirality, then of course it continued to reproduce molecules of the same chirality. That is what reproduction means.-I would just love to see the article in a biologic journal that shows a mechanism whereby chirality can be totally shifted from left to right or back again by any biologic process, when the coding that controls life's processes is so specifically one way. Evolution cannot explain why amino acids in life are left-handed and nucleic acids are all right-handed, 100%, or why that need be so through natural selection. Handedness describes fittedness? Great just-so story.-Another aspect of evolution by reproduction and natural selection is the human retina is backwards. Is backwards more fit, or terrible design by the designer, as judged by Darwinists? We already know that this design provides the greatest amount of energy for the cells. Now we see that the backward cells actually refine vision!-http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i15/e158102