There is no actual “missing link”. There is not a literal animal that magically bridged the gap between the precursors of ape and man. The term is merely a reference to the fact that the fossil record is spotty and incomplete. The “link” would merely help explain the evolution of the line.

The mistaken belief that there is a “link” that directly ties humans as they are now to other primates assumes that there was a clean evolutionary break. A lot of evidence points to a long time of interbreeding between proto-human species before Homo sapiens sapiens wiped out/outcompeted the others. There was never a clean disjunction that could be brought together with a “link.” It’s a poor metaphor.

Besides, Bigfoot isn’t an ape, he’s a redneck/grizzly-bear hybrid who eats beef jerky.

There are a lot of missing pieces in the fossil record. So, we have many missing cousins.

monkey in the middle

yeah, I think I just waited on him

There’s also a severe zenos paradox element to the term “missing link”.

Does the absence of a missing link reinforce creationism?

No. It merely causes one to consider how amazing it is that we have as much of a fossil record as we do – the conditions have to been perfectly met in order to leave these amazing hints of how life used to be.

There will always be a missing link.
The more we learn we also better understand what we don’t know and search anew.
It’s mare a matter of scale than knowledge.

No. I was reading an article in a magazine that said, “Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record (the fossil record that is) shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.”

After years of watching Indiana Jones, I think the mayans have the missing link

Picture the story of evolution like a chain. Each link in the chain should be forged by science. Each part of the story that cannot be supported by science is considered a “missing link.”