u/RoxieHartStan

The basic cycle of evolution as I understand it is:

1. A random mutation occurs which causes a trait to emerge in an individual.
2. That trait either helps individual's ability to thrive and reproduce, in which case it is selected for and gets proliferated in the populace, or it harms the individual's chances, in which case it gets removed from the gene pool after a while.
3. Over enough time, different species evolve due to accumulated differing traits caused by the aforementioned mutations.

My question is: does all this truly start with genuine random mutations? Or is that a simplification of things?

Okay ANY is a lie, I did watch the original pilot of TOS, "The Cage" (due to Jeffrey Hunter's hotness), and the 2-part episode of TOS "The Menagerie." So I do know that Captain Pike (who is the star of SNW) eventually ends up crippled and on Talos IV and I also know that he knows this is his fate and he discovered it on some episode of Discovery (which I didn't watch, but I did watch some other episode where they visit Talos IV, but all of this was years ago).

So I do know that much, but that's where my knowledge of Star Trek gets completely cut off. So knowing all that, how lost would I be if I started SNW?

Edit: By the way, the show should end with the events of The Cage / The Menagerie, right? They wouldn't just skip shooting that because it's a foregone conclusion?

Edit 2: Thank you everyone for the responses!

There are 2 possibilities:

• Neurons evolved once in the ancestor of all animals, and that trait was passed down both to comb jellies and placozoans/cnidarians/bilaterians, while it was lost in sponges. This makes sponges secondarily neuron-less.

• Neurons evolved twice; once in the branch leading up to comb jellies, and once in the branch leading up to placozoans/cnidarians/bilaterians (i.e. after sponges having diverged). This means sponges being neuron-less is an ancestral trait, just like what the porifera-sister crowd think.

Which of the 2 options do you think is more likely?

I've had insomnia for agessss and when I first got on mirtazapine 8 months ago—not for insomnia purposes—I was finally able to go to sleep a few minutes after putting my head on my pillow. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed that.

But now I've found that the drowsiness is all but gone, and I'm back to my insomniac ways. I guess taking the drug once a day every day for 8 months builds up quite the tolerance to it.

For people who were/are in my situation, what did you do? Upping the dose is off the table for me personally. Did you go on other medications to help you sleep? If so, what?