4. On chirality:

The origin of homochirality in nature is usually debated in terms of two opposite views. According to a deterministic (ex-lege) approach, one of the two enantiomers has a lower intrinsic energy and therefore a greater probability of occurrence. The alternative is a stochastic process, according to which the selection of one enantiomer over the other out of a racemate was determined by contingency. From recent experiments, it appears that the breaking of symmetry may be achieved rather easily in the laboratory, possibly under prebiotic conditions. Do you agree then with the view, that the origin of homochirality in nature “is no longer a problem”?

Was homochirality in nature implemented originally at the level of bio-monomers; or only after, namely at the level of the separation of diastereomeric macromolecules originated from racemic bio-monomers? (some authors hold the assertion that it’s easier to physically separate diastereomeric macromolecules than enantiomeric monomers).