The term "missing link" is an outdated term that does not accurately reflect the way biologists and paleontologists think about fossils. We prefer not to talk about "missing links" or "intermediate forms", but rather intermediate features.

Alan D. Gishlick in "Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong"

[Karthaus' background information: Wells promotes Intelligent Design and the above mentionned article "Icons of Evolution" is a paper by Wells in which he dismantels some of the pillars of evolutionary thinking.]

Mr. Gishlick does not refer to "missing links" anymore. Still, not that long ago, most notably also by Charles Darwin himself, "missing links" were thought to exist.
Unfortunately the "missing links" were never found. Archaeopteryx is not a missing link. This is now widely recognized in scientific circles. It was never recognized as a missing link by people believing in creation, because according to them, God created all animals "according to their own kind".

That much about how sure evolutionists are about their model and theory. Now, they do not talk about "missing links" anymore, but prefer "intermediate features". How long will it take until this new phrase is also outdated?

Olaf Karthaus