you can put it down to evolution if you want
But you do realise that linguists look for such similarities to determine if a language is related to another?
In this case its was said that the chinese were already an established nation far away from the mesopotamians and therefore their language was completely independent and not related....IOW it was established before the 'so called' confusion of languages incident.
So this similarity is either just a coincidence, or the chinese were not an established nation at the time and were a part of the people of mesopotamia who were dispersed after the tower of babel incident.
Yes similarities are used and it is the point that the similarities are which separate the Sino-Tibetan (ie Chinese), from the Hameto-Semetic(ie Arabic, Hebrew, Egyptian, Babylonian etc) or from the Indo-European (ie Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Hindi, Persian etc) or from the aboriginal Langauges (ie Austaloid, Ainu or Basque). It is not just similarities but how & when these similarities occured. The same with the other language families.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008