How are biological evolution and linguistic evolution similar?

I don't think the changes in vocabulary, syntax, and grammer are random...Language, unlike biological evolution, has a purpose.

I don't doubt that languages evolve. You seem to want to describe it in a way that can be used exactly the same and still describe biological evolution: Sure, they are very similiar but why do you want to describe them in the exact same way? What's the point?And don't you think that sorta hides the differences that do exist? They can be unconscous, but I don't think we should eliminate that they can also be conscious.

Nobody. A better example would have been "mother". In almost every language, the word for mother begins with the "Mmmm" sound...It can't be coincidence and it certainly wasn't planned that way.But that doesn't mean that no words are (like television).My point is that some are conscious and some are unconscious, it doesn't have to be all or none.

Absolutely. I just don't think the best way to do that is with two simple statements of the same form, but with one saying "biological" and the other saying "linguistic" evolution. With all the mental gymnastic they have to do to maintain their beliefs, what makes you think they won't get over this hurdle?