I wonder why more people are right-handed. What could be a biological basis for that?
Having the opposite handedness of most other people (i.e. being left-handed) is an advantage in a fight. That's because righties are used to fight against other righties because most people are righties, lefties are also used to fight against other righties. It means that when a lefty fights a righty, the lefty is in a familiar situation while the righty is not, giving the lefty an advantage. And indeed, in many sports where you have an opponent, at high level, there is a higher than normal proportion of lefties.
On the other hand (pun not intended), having the same handedness as most other people (i.e. being right-handed) is an avantage for cooperation. For example, to righties can easily share a tool made for righties, but it will be awkward for a lefty.
So there are two opposing forces here: cooperation tends to make people of all the same handedness, while competition pushes for a 50/50 distribution. We are at about 90/10, suggesting that the cooperation aspect is more important but not absolutely so.
That dominant side is the right side is probably just due to random chance. That it doesn't differ between population groups suggest that it happened before humans spread around the globe, possibly before humans were human.
Last time I read about this, I think some physicist said something about the rotation of elementary particles and radiation stuff that are way over my head.
Don't worry, I am not an atom-ist or a chiral-ist. All sides are equal! (except the ambidextrous master race :D )
I suspect it's different, in that I expect the reason for people is something like "handedness makes people better at violence". Whereas I suspect chirality is more like driving on the right/left side of the road. Which one you pick doesn't matter, but picking is less chaotic than not picking.
Not all enzymes are stereospecific though. Some of them can take any configuration of a chemical and convert them to other type of isomer. But these are rare and usually an exception, not the norm. Still, it makes it harder to figure out why chirality is so important in life and not so much in some other parts of life.
Maybe your explanation about handedness makes sense. But then it would fail at explaining ambidextrous people since they are definitely better and yet still so rare. Life is really difficult to figure out.
Maybe I'm an outlier, but your notion that being ambidextrous is better is a huge assumption. Having a dominant side could have the same sort of benefit that specialization usually does: better for the cases that really matter, worse for the cases that are less important.