Since you cannot do either you have nothing to add here.
Those aren't the only choices. Say you have an old-fashioned balance scale, but the only weight you have is 10 pounds. You could test things all you want, but the only results you'd ever get is "less than 10 pounds" or "more than 10 pounds." If you said an apple and a watermelon produced the same result on the test, you'd be right, and the test would not be in error. But if you then concluded that an apple and a watermelon were identical, you'd be going beyond what the test told you. Do you understand that?
[[Either you can demonstrate your expertize (or even comprehension) in the matter or you can’t.]]
They can’t- all they can offer is yelling about an ‘old test’ while pretendign the resutls are invalid because it’s ‘an old test’ (I get tested for Crohn’s disease using ‘old test proceedures’ al lthe time- but apparently, all the resutls are invalid simpyl because the test proceedures ‘haven’t been updated’ in many years. Those arguign with you will neither show the tests are actually invalid, nor that scant few homological similarities equate to proof for macroevolution (all while ignoring the vast differecnes which compeltely seperate species, and for which macroevolution has no credible answer to explain how htese differences could occure - but meh- I guess ‘the test is old’ is as good a defense as macroevos can mount [ oh, and ‘how many peer review papers has he or she written? Wha... Wha.... Whaaaaaat? Only a few dozen? Pffffft- then he or she isn’t a ‘valid scientist’ and has no business reviewing science] [because apparently only ‘scientists’ are capable of udnerstanding science- not sure why these folks on htis forum withotu degrees are thusly makign arguments for macroevolution, but meh- whatever- double standards are hte norm I guess)
Yep- let’s find and look for similarities’ and claim macroevolution- after all, differences don’t mean squat evidently- Round rocks and oranges must htusly be related’ due to ‘similarities’