Tarzan, pal, I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here, in that you tend to pick a definition for some term, and then you build your arguments around your particular definition, and then you make like you're prepared to die on that hill defending the arguments based on that definition.
In this particular case, and without wanting to reopen that argument itself, you've defined "something new" for yourself to mean "something entirely unseen before including all parts of it", as evidenced by the remark earlier about "people eating through their ears", and you've build your argument around the fact that pursuing that is both silly and impossible, which is completely true given that particular definition and context.
However, most of the thread, including me, defines something new as assembling bits, that may or may not be new themselves, into something fresh, which as a definition makes much more sense.
So, what we end up with, on multiple occasions, isn't a clash about differing opinions, but about misaligned definitions. And in this case, as the sender, instead of digging in deeper, it's really more sensible to come to an understanding that your definition is not as commonly understood as you assumed it was.
If you amend your statement that "nothing new can be created" into something like "nothing can be created that consists entirely of new parts", you'll see a whole lot of people go "oh, right, eh, well, I guess that's true enough".
Works much better than just reiterating it but a little more testy for people not getting it.
