There's a major flaw in the 'Missing Link' argument.
Many anti-Evolution proponents have used the 'Missing Link' argument in the past. 60 years ago we didn't have extensive fossils of pre-homo sapiens, the 'Missing Link' argument has been used. Today, we have found more fossils that better explain the transitions within the Evolution of Humans as a species. Yet, the argument for the 'Missing Link' are still being used... despite Paleontologists finding more and more fossils explaining the transitions. The reuse of the Missing Link argument is getting dull and indicate that anti-Evolution proponents cannot form a better argument against Evolution of Life.
Missing Link is a non-scientific term, the proper terms would be 'missing branches' in the evolutionary tree. The major problem is that there could be thousands (even millions) of species that are missing (we haven't found evidence of them yet), since fossilization requires optimal conditions for the fossil to be well preserved and identified. Science (Paleontology) does not create their own transitional fossils, they first have to find the evidence for them, then analyze them and finally be able to catalogue the fossil to the corresponding branch.
Should we also have a discussion whether Morality has been taught through the Bible (Religion) or whether is it something we as a species developed over time?
You can already guess which position I'll be.
Cheers
Yanoda
P.S. Damn you auto-correct for messing up the scientific term for humans!