My point was that you cannot use this analogy and the result from it in language study to then return to evolution and claim that it informs the study of evolution: that is a causal fallacy of wrong direction (like saying that cancer causes smoking).
Nonsense.
I can use any analogy I like if it helps to explain a concept. The fact that using the term 'evolution' in language study originated by analogy with biological evolution is irrelevant.
Changes in languages are simpler than changes in living organisms, and they are more readily observed and understood by people who don't have specialist knowledge. That's why language provides a useful analogy.
The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible
™ Version 4.2