> Note also the following fallacy of equivocation in Millerâs definition of
> Evolution: ãevolution: process by which modern organisms have
> descended from ancient organisms; any change in the relative
> frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.ä [page 29]
I fail to see how this is a "fallacy of equivocation". Miller is not using
two different definitions simultaneously, but has split a longer, more
detailed definition into two separate parts. Miller's definition of
evolution would thus be a process by which modern organisms have descended
from ancient organisms through changes in the relative frequencies of alleles
in the gene pool of a population. The first part of the definition describes
the result of evolution, while the second part describes the fundamental
mechanism. There is no equivocation here.
Kevin L. O'Brien