I see you conveniently overlooked the biggest problem with that particular skull. That the skull was badly diseased, a fact that even the Smithsonian admits for which I provided a link in the debunking.
Whether it was a recent skull with a bullet wound, a 100,000 years old or 400,000 years old as the various claims are made, is not as important as why evolutionists feel the need to include a badly diseased human skull as an example of a traditional.
The only link provided with regard to the Rhodesia Man skull (I) is to a web page by Dr. Jack Cuozzo, who doesn't appear to have any official affiliation with the Smithsonian. He's the only one I see claiming it's a diseased specimen, and he's the same nut who seems to thing this 100,000+yr. old skull was killed by a bullet wound. How silly can you get?
A little research shows that Cuozzo isn't a paleontologist or anthropologist of any type, he's an orthodontist from New Jersey, for crying out loud! In his book, Buried Alive, he apparently claims Neanderthals were humans that lived for hundreds of years. He claimed to find fossils at a site in England that later turned out to be nothing but pieces of gravel. I swear, you can't make this stuff up!
Looks like Cuozzo and others of his ilk should leave science to the professionals. On second thought, why should he? Looks like he's made quite a bit of $$ selling his crackpot book, without having to go through pesky ordeals like research, fact checking, peer review, further testing etc....