The most remarkable thing about that display of skulls is that none of them (other than the presently existing man and monkey specimens) existed at the time of Darwin's work. I think Neanderthal was discovered very shortly thereafter, and all the rest came later. Yet evolution theory predicted that, because these then-unknown and unsuspected intermediate species had once existed, evidence of them might be found. And now the evidence has in fact been discovered. When a theory makes predictions about previously unknown phenomena, and then future discoveries demonstrate that those predictions were correct, that is very powerful confirmation of the theory.
Conversely, the creationists had been running around saying that "the missing link" would never be found because -- according to creationism -- there was no such link. So creationism's one big prediction has been a total failure. No wonder they spend so much energy denying the existence of the evidence.
And yet we still get creos asking, "What about all the missing links?"
Why don't we find any of the intermediates that evolution does not predict? Bird-mammal mosaics? Amphibian-mammal or amphibian-bird mosaics? We find missing links, but not unexpected links. Evolution's record at prediction is far better than the creos admit.