The language metaphor is powerful if misguided.

It would be great for analogy if languages changed randomly, accidentally, and imperceptibly. On closer inspection, none of that is true.

Folks purposely coin new terms. They get tired of old language and pronounce things different. They accidentally overhear words and misuse them, too, but that is not random chance, it is due to the perception of vocal cues and mistakes.

In macro evolution, we would need to have the same kind of fluid changes of creatures happening through natural and random forces.

You move the goalposts to score.

Furthermore, language did not arise on its own at random. It would seem more scientific to presuppose that language was borne out of purpose and design, and whatever words you would intentionally eschew in a debate on evolution.

That was an unforced error on your part. Language is clearly not evolutionary in its creation story. It is rooted in purpose, and meaning, and defining the environment by fiat. It has living elements that direct both its genesis and its structure and its propagation through time and space. It cannot be disconnected from its creators (that is, presumably man) and its changing character (clearly driven by man).

To interpret the branching languages in the earth as an evolutionary process is too short-sighted and unscientific to not point out your egregious error. You might want to reconsider not just your analogy, but even use this as a meta-example of the creative processes at work in the earth.

Thanks for your insight! I liked the chart. I am somewhat a history buff.

I also liked how you deflected the search for the missing linked pairs... to a discussion in which missing links cannot or should not exist.