By your argument, that name merely leaps to an unsupported conclusion. That the "silver screen" is not actually made of silver is not at issue.
My contention is that a film or videotape (call it what you will) constitutes a satisfactory demonstration of motion. Similarly, I contend that the fossil record constitutes a satisfactory demonstration of common descent.
It's tortuous all the way down.
I have no quarrel with the contention that a film demonstrates motion, not by mere definition, but because the definition comprehends what is taking place with the still pictures. If a film is to be seen motion itself is necessary. Motion is one of the properties of a film, at least one that is being seen.
But you called universal common descent "evidence", and I maintain that it is not evidence, but an an attempt to explain the evidence you refer to here, i.e., the fossil record. If universal common descent is true simply by definition then there is no conceivable fact of the fossil record that could possibly persuade you otherwise.
Cordially,