Thank you for your post. I agree with much of what you've said.

However, seeing as languages evolve over time, can be "living" or "extinct," and can split into new languages like new species, adapt to their environments, and often have traceable lineages; I figured the biological analogy sufficient for languages as living systems, but perhaps I took it too far.

I attempted a math-physics double major at my university, but didn't succeed in that effort. I ended up in Classics, focusing on Ancient Greek language. I also do a fair amount of programming. I suppose that might be why I get stuck in that kind of mathematical reasoning for language, which may not apply as smoothly.

Yet, I didn't intend to equate physics with language. I was just saying that popular science communicators often get support for their fields out in the public, but linguistics tends to be more insular, (especially conlinguistics).

For agglutination, why not "Single-category UnitChaining-language?" Each affix generally has one category, (as opposed to fusional languages), and units of meaning are chained together. I suppose the terminology is always somewhat arbitrary, though and requires some explanation.