There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.
What's interesting is the use of words like "links" and "transitional". The science of taxonomy itself contradicts Darwin's theory.
Paleontology and the words/definitions it incorporates, implies discreetness. Not continuousness. Darwin's continuous idea is merely a meme in our collective mind.
---excerpt from article---
However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. ". . . Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1958 Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137). ". . . The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).
It is pertinent to this subject.
"What's interesting is the use of words like "links" and "transitional". The science of taxonomy itself contradicts Darwin's theory."
Not in any way.
Darwin was a smart guy - if he was here today he would agree with those of us doubting what's being sold in his name... I see no contradiction.