This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling
Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition)
by Dr. Walt Brown.
Copyright © 1995–2002, Center
for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click
here to order the hardbound edition.

[
The Scientific Case for Creation
> Life
Sciences > The Theory
of Organic Evolution Is Invalid. > Life Is So
Complex That Chance Processes, Even over Billions of Years, Cannot Explain Its
Origin. > Handedness:
Left and Right]

35.   Handedness: Left and Right

Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In
living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They were initially named
“right-handed” because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotated
like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they
do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides
formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore
could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material
cannot even copy itself.a

Each type of amino acid, when found in
nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two
chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are
left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including
plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all
left-handed.b No known natural
process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The
mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny
protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.c

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic
compounds called “sugars.” In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based
on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of
left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are
right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with
the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would
be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that
enhance survivability and produce more offspring, consider how advantageous a
mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted”
(or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer
provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would
fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and
would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with
right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not
more poisonous plants? Why doesn’t any beneficial mutation permit its carriers
to swamp most predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than evolutionists
believe. [See “Mutations” on page 7.]

Best viewed with Netscape 7 or Internet Explorer
6.
Updated on Friday, January 16
Copyright ©
1995–2002
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com/
[email-masked]
(602)
955-7663

Search WWW Search creationscience.com