The fallacy of equivocation

From Vomit the Lukewarm, an interesting fallacy applied to the subject of evolution. This is the fallacy of equivocation, also known as "doublespeak".

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

From Vomit the Lukewarm:

It is often overlooked that most accounts of the origin of the species do not assert the evolution of material living beings. They assert the selection of things, which is quite different. "Selection" denotes extraneous activity; but evolution denotes immanent activity- i.e. a sort of "blossoming" or unfolding of the potencies within matter. More of a place needs to be made for evolution in the account of specific origins, since these origins are accounts of what living things do- and to be alive is to have immanent activity.

The reason this is fallacious is that VTL is using the word "evolution" in one particular sense, and ignoring other senses in which it is defined.
A quick visit to onelook.com turns up several references for the word "evolution":

Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
• 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
• 2 b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION
• 
  2 c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH
• 2 c (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
• 2 d : something evolved
• 3 : the process of working out or developing
• 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY
• 4 b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
• 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
• 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

To argue against the use of "evolution" in the sense of [2(a)], possibly [3], while scientists are using it in another sense ([4(b)], possibly [4(a)] as well) is to commit the equivocation fallacy. (And some wag could claim we're both wrong because we're not referring to sense [5] in our discussions.)
Words often acquire new meanings, especially as they get pressed into service in new fields of inquiry. We would correctly reject an argument that organic chemistry is somehow fallacious because it ignores the first meaning of "organic" – "of or arising from a bodily organ". (And I've had this argument with people before. They didn't want to accept the definition used by chemistry – an organic chemical is one which contains carbon. Period. They insisted on the "original" definition.) Anyone who insisted on using the first meaning of "virus" ("poison") when discussing the flu or AIDS would have a hard time getting published in the journals.
"Organic", "virus", and many other words have acquired new and specialized meanings in the sciences. So has "evolution".