How are biological evolution and linguistic evolution similar?

Whereas in my last question I was looking for feedback from creationists, this time I'm soliciting feedback from evolutionists and linguists.I want to be able to state the abract similarity between biological and language evolution. Note that when I say language evolution I mean the linguistic evolution of languages (eg. the Romance languages from Latin, English from PreGermanic, etc.) not the evolutionary development of the ability to communicate in language in Homo sapiens. I want to be precise and accurate in my terms and concepts.Fortunately, it seems that there a lot of folks here with solid expertise in linguistics. And again, I would much prefer feedback from evolutionists (sorry, but I think I already gave the creationists a chance last time, and I'm not interested in a debate this time around).So, can I correctly state this?:
Biological evolution is driven by selection pressures of the environment on random non-directed changes in the variation present in genes in a species.
Language evolution happens through the gradual accumulation of random non-directed changes in the variation present in the vocabulary, syntax, and grammar of a language.I wanted to say "selection pressures on languages" but I don't know if that's true. To be sure, a language has to be passed to the next generation or it dies out (cf. most aboriginal languages worldwide), but it doesn't seem to be as significant as it is in biological evolution.So please, if I'm wrong or way off base, feel free to correct me.

"Random" perhaps is not the precise word. What I want to describe is that it's not like the whole nation gathers together once a year to decide on changes to the language. Even dictionaries like the OED only confirm the shifts taking place at large.According to this article language drift is unconscious, so to me that means that if the changes in language have a purpose, it's not planned for by the agents using the language.Biological mutations are random. I'm not sure if the raw changes in a language are random.Hmm, the same article says that the changes in language are directional. And although my preference is for Gould over Dawkins, I guess I have to think scientifically and accept that Dawkins' idea of a directional arms race is more pre-eminent in evolutionary thought.So how about if I replace the word "non-directed" with "unconscious"Biological evolution is driven by selection pressures of the environment on random unconscious changes in the variation present in genes in a species.
Language evolution happens through the gradual accumulation of random unconscious changes in the variation present in the vocabulary, syntax, and grammar of a language as selection pressures act on those raw changes.What sayeth ye? Are the changes that emerge in language random? I say yes in that they are unforseen (maybe not completely).

A word like television is coined for an immediate need. You're right about that.But what about the word "father"? Who consciously and deliberately created that word?

It's a thought experiment, I guess. I agree that they are very different and I don't want to negate those differences, but I still think you can abstract out the similarities.What's the point? Well, most opponents of evolution have a much easier time accepting language evolution (because they won't deny the evidence from historical writings). They would inadvertently have to concede principles in language evolution that they deny in biological evolution.