Well, yeah, but that's only because you keep your eyes closed when you read posts.
Still false, as always. Falsehoods don't become true just by repeating them. Here's one of the many, many studies in which new alleles are seen, caused by mutations:
Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families.
The title should of told you you had no case before you started.
Variation in genome-wide mutation rates... Nothing new was created, merely what already existed varied in the way it was put together, combinations of what already existed in the male or female parents.
We are not arguing about variations, we know they exists, take a look at the cat species, of this there is no doubt. We are arguing the creation of a genome not through variation of recessive or dominant genes, or the combination of genes from both parents, or combinations of how the genes fit together, but brand new genes.
It occurs by copy number variation, that is fewer were copied than normal or more were copied than normal.
Copy-number variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"For example, the chromosome that normally has sections in order as A-B-C-D might instead have sections A-B-C-C-D (a duplication of "C") or A-B-D (a deletion of "C")...
CNVs can be caused by structural
rearrangements of the genome such as
deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations."
Nothing new was created, just one or more sections of the DNA were copied incorrectly.
Strong Association of De Novo Copy Number Mutations with Autism
That you try to imply simple copying mistakes are creation of new genes is a personal problem you need to resolve. That sections of the DNA are deleted or copied more than they should be is not creation of new genes, that is why it involves "copying" of existing DNA sections, not creation of new ones.
New alleles is not mentioned in either paper, or any paper, except as a hypothesis of something never observed. We are not arguing variations do not occur, by natural causes, or by mutation. But an incorrect copying does not a new gene make, since what was copied already existed, even if the new copy did not exist before. hence the variation in appearance in the feline species, the human species, the mouse species, every species. But they always remain the same as they always were, felines, humans, mice, or whatever.
Just as is clear in the fossil record. From the first T-rex fossil to the last, they are all the same with simple minor variation in size or appearance changes. The species is not in flux, but in stasis. This is why Gould initiated (punk-eek), because he could not dismiss the stasis of fossils from the first to the last, so attempted to bypass the evidence observed. Just as evolutionists are now attempting to bypass the evidence observed, variation of what already existed.