...not very well.

Evolution is best defined as "change through time" - so any structure or object can 'evolve'. It so happens that biological systems reproduce themselves and therefore (tend to) evolve by natural selection.

Do pokemon reproduce themselves?
Yes, but the cartoons tend to gloss over these 'messy' details, unsurprisingly. Presumably, the pokemon evolve by mutation and selection, but the members of a 'species' do seem to be very similar, if not identical. This would make the generation of variety difficult for types. On the other hand, consumer devices are reproduced by us, and changes made (again, by us) to the new copies are selected by market forces.

Butterflies and Metamorphosis
However, natural selection is not the only 'evolution' (in the broader sense) that organisms undergo. Many creatures make radical changes to their bodies that can be considered to be a type of evolution. Indeed, if we use this broad definition, all organisms undergo the evolution known as 'ageing' - as well as the many that go through development from an embryo. Of course, for digimon, the transformation is reversible!

So what?
It doesn't have to be true that car adverts ("It's evolved!") and cartoons only help confuse these scientific issues. It's also possible to use examples from popular culture to explain some of the difficulties of science. There will always be a tension between the popular use of a term, and the scientific use. 'Evolution' is such a word, as is mutation - and many others. If we don't want to end up speaking different versions of the same language (using the same words, but meaning different things) I think that resolution of such clashes is quite important.

Note to mr100percent : no it isn't.