Maybe for you -- but to me, it isn't.
Again, why are they called 'missing links'?
The term is not a valid one. Evolution takes place along a spectrum, it is not neatly divided up into clearly defined species.
Between any two individuals separated by a long period of time, there is a continuous line of intermediates, each one being the offspring of an individual from the generation before. There is a continuous line of individuals from the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans and you, AV. There is a similar line for me (which diverges in the very recent past, because the most recent common ancestor between you and me lived much more recently).
Each such individual is like a link in a chain. Imagine we call the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans "Bob". And we'll use you as an example as well. There is a continuous unbroken line of parents and offspring between Bob and you. Imagine you could go back in time and follow this snippet of evolution as, over time, this lineage evolved from Bob's species to modern humans. As you watched, you'd notice that each individual, each link in the chain, is slightly less Bob-like and slightly more AV-like. There's no point at which a member of Bob's species gives birth to a modern Human.
Here's another way of looking at it. Here's a gradient that goes from black to white.
You could imagine each pixel is an individual, and going from left to right is like a timeline. Each pixel is the offspring of the pixel to the left, and the parent of the pixel to the right. Gradually, the pixels are evolving to go from black to white. But there's no point where there is a white pixel next to a black pixel. If you look at any single pixel, you would say that it is the same colour as the pixels on either side of it. And yet the colour changes from black to white.
The same gradual change happens in evolution. If you look at any individual animal, you would say it is the same speices as its parent, and it is the same species as its offspring. But the population is still able to evolve over many generations and become a new species in just the same way that the pixels were able to change from black to white.
Now, the trouble with a term like "missing link" is this. If two very similar species are examioned, we can see that they are different. But if we were to find an intermediate between them - some individual on the chain of evolution that joins them - some could say that this new discovery is a member of the older species that has some characteristics of the later species. But others could say that it is a member of the newer species that has characteristics of the old species. And because evolution takes place along a continuum, both are correct. So you see, the term "missing link" comes about because of the human need to name things. We see it as either a member of a particular species or not. The term "missing link" comes about simply because of the limitations of human language, not because of the process of evolution.
