Please explain how skull A can be in better shape than skull B simply by being a replica.
Don't you recognize your own words? You told Gore2000 that---For instance, here's a skull in much better shape from another find:. That is not true. It is not from another find as it is a replica. A replica is not a source. You did not know that. You stated that it was from a find. Either you made a mistake which I pointed out or you are a liar which is it? I do not have the original so I cannot judge the fidelity of the replica, only point out that it is a replica. If the level of veracity displayed by the replica is anywhere near what you in general have been displaying, the original skull probably consisted of a tooth, a decayed one at that.
You're saying its a conjectural reconstruction and not a replica?
The reason it is in much better shape is, it is a replica.
In Post 371 you said this:
I also agree that a replica is quite different than a conjectural reconstruction.
You did not take exception to the Merriam-Webster definition of "replica" when it was offered. Not, at least, until your post 415, in which you reserve the right to claim (but not prove) what you've sought to imply (but not say), which is the same as what gore3000 was saying, that the University of California Museum of Paleontology (and by extension all "Evolutionary" science) fakes its fossils.
Note that I have already conceded that the picture is of a replica, and that I had missed the fact until you pointed it out. You only repeat the question "Either you made a mistake which I pointed out or you are a liar which is it?" as part of your ongoing campaign of smoke and mirrors.
Nowhere have I brazened or intentionally mislead, much less lied. It is a feature of creationist arguments, however, that error is never acknowledged. There must be some kind of cognitive dissonance operating. "The Lord wouldn't let me fail."