I disagree. The term 'missing link' is a lie peddled by fundamentalist creationists. The claim is "there are still fragments of evidence that don't fit the expected pattern."
A missing link is irrelevant to that claim. Again, what evidence can you present that doesn't fit with evolutionary theory?
There are numerous cases of hominids that are found where they shouldn't be, or differ slightly from others. They don't quite fit the pattern or time line which science expected to find them in. That doesn't disprove evolution, it merely shows us that we are missing some of the details.
The missing link is a myth created by fundamentalist creationists?
The most commonly referred to 'missing link' is the point at which the genetic origins of higher primates coincide. Something which bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates and their more distant relatives such as lemurs. It has nothing to do with fundamental creationism.
A possible candidate for this role was incidentally discovered in Germany in 2009, a small lemur-like skeleton with many primate characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, fingernails instead of claws, and shorter limbs.
There is a big gap in evolutionary theory at the point where higher primates split from their lower cousins like the lemurs... a missing link. They will now spend years trying to prove this creature is NOT the so call missing link. That's what science does, assemble known data, draw conclusions, and try to disprove those conclusions.