guidoLamoto

We have to determine what you mean by "tolerance." For instance, many drugs are metabolized by certain enzyme systems, often determined by single genes, that controls how quickly a drug builds up in the body to achieve its therapeutic level (or toxic level) and how quickly it's removed from the body. There are also genes controlling how well a specific drug will work or if it will work at all. ..Then there's the phenomenon of tachyphylaxis-- some drugs require periodically increasing doses to achieve the same effect as the previous, lower dose. Many of those drugs also show the phenomenon of a withdrawal syndrome when suddenly discontinued. In general, the time required to achieve a given drug level is also the time required to remove the drug from the system upon discontinuation. Return to the baseline level of "tolerance" may take longer, given that the enzyme & receptor systems involved often show "recruitment" and need time to return to baseline levels.

I'm not sure if you're asking about technical problems of genome mapping, or about the evolutionary significance of genetic redundancy? For the technical side, does this help? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937319/ For the evolutionary significance, the simplistic answer is that redundancy increases the chances of survival if a chance mutation proves to be deleterious. A "back up plan" so to speak.

Science? co2 has not been "studied well." Computer models are art, not science. There is absolutely no theoretical way to estimate the contribution of co2 to the GHE, and all "science" today is based on correlations. Check the correlation of [co2] vs temps for the period 1950 -1980 : negative, ie increased co2 must lead to cooling, if you're willing to equate correlation with cause & effect....The GHG Effect is theoretical with zero experimental evidence to support (or reject) it. [h2o] differences small? Compare deserts to rain forest please. Compare cloudy days & nites to cloudless. Of course there ae huge differences and huge effects......My point about anecdotes is that young people are no longer educated in school, but indoctrinated. They fail to question the teachings of the masters even when those run contrary to their own experiences. That's called belief on faith alone-- the very definition of religion and antithetical to science. .Again, check that energy budget graph posted above and find the absorption spectra of the various atm gases: ….O2 & n2 are 99% of the atm and its ave. temp is `288degK. They can only be warmed from 0 deg to 288 by absorption of visible light or by conduction from the heat of the surface, and there isn't that much energy subtracted by the O & N from the sunlight. Most of their temp is gained by conduction-- a fact miscalculated by the Kiehl & Trenberth study because it wouldn't fit the narrative to say otherwise. Error bars. Find an honest site that shows the historical temp records with error bars. You can draw a straight horizontal line and remain within the error bars throughout its course, ie-- statistically no differences in temps "measured" by proxy, at least after the great warming that occurred 12-15000 y/a or for the geologic record going back to the Cambrian... ..Check the temp record for the last 2000 yrs: a total range of only 1 degC. Using the often stated approximation of 1 SD is about 1/4th of the range of measurements, then no temps fall outside +/- 2 SD of the average, ie-- ~ 67% chance that all temp changes for the period are due merely to random variation about the mean. Before we let dictatorial govt regulations force us to return to an 1880s lifestyle with an inability to feed 7.5B people at a cost estimated to be $4 QUADrillion (that's 50x the Gross WORLD Product), we probably ought to make sure we have the science right....and we're not even close to that.

Several points: far and away the most important GHGs are h2o & o3-- and even they have mixed effects. While they both can delay the exit of IR wavelengths radiated as energy absorbed by the planet's surface is sent back off towards space, they both also intercept and reflect a great deal of incoming short wav radiation from the sun-- Everybody knows cloudy days are cooler than sunny days, but cloudy nights are warmer than cloudless nights...Notice that deserts (low atm [h2o]) get hot in the day and cold at night, while rain forests (hi atm [h2o]) are hot during the day and stay hot all night, but both have the same [co2]. ???? A reasonable person would deduce that co2 isn't all that important in weather /climate considerations compared to h2o. One should also be able to deduce from personal experience that the energy budget cartoon posted above is wrong: it claims only 7% of the energy absorbed by the surface is lost via direct conduction to the air. We've all experienced a foot scalded by the hot sand on the beach (conduction), and lifting that burned foot only a few inches relieves the heat-- but while lifted it's still getting hit with the IR (radiation)... 99% of the atm is n2 & o2-- but they don't get warmed by IR, only by visible light or by direct conduction from the surface. The OP's original question about the geologic temp record-- determined by oxygen isotopes or by fossil plankton records, but either way, the error bars are huge-- so big that conclusions should not be trusted. The workers in the field claim there is little diffusion of gases thru the layer of ice, but give me a break-- no diffusion over a hundred thousand yrs? I didn't just fall of the turnip truck..What's their "gold standard to make that claim?.... But if they don't make the claim, then no more research funds.

Cholesterol levels are determined genetically with very little, if any, correlation to diet. Triglyceride levels have both a genetic and dietary influence. The chol & triglycerides in your blood are not the ones you ate, but the ones your body (mostly your liver) synthesized according to your genetic "plans," out of the basic Ac-CoA building blocks formed as products of digestion. It's difficult to claim hi chol influences arteriosclerosis when the coefficient of correlation is only ~0.3. A little better predictor of outcomes is the LDL/HDL ratio, but even that has only ~ 0.5 coef of Corr.....Correlation of hi WBC with infection is virtually 1.0--- does that mean taking chemotherapy to lower your WBC is the right way to treat infection? Taking regular exercise improves, statistically speaking, your chance of heart attack just as much as hi chol raises it. People who are overweight usually have confounding factors, such as lower likelihood of taking regular exercise or having diabetes, that increase their risks of arteriosclerosis. The main purpose of insulin is to regulate fat metabolism: it enhances fat production and inhibits the burning of fat. Eating a hi carb diet tends to increase fat stores, while a higher fat diet does not lead to as much fat production....Proof is easily deduced from the usual course of Type I (insulin deficiency) diabetes: it's usually first found in a chubby young kid of 5 or six yrs old who looses all sorts of weight rather rapidly. The doc finds his BS sky high and starts him on insulin. The kid rapidly regains his fat stores. There are plenty of lab studies that confirm the central role of insulin in fat metabolism.