Why are there no fossils for the 'missing link' that connects our ancestors with other species? Is this a misconception or is there another explanation?

Some pre-human populations apparently even co-existed for more than a million years, such as Homo habilis and some Australopithecines. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens and Denisovans coexisted in different regions, too, and modern humans comingled with Neanderthals for a while. Sexy story, that.

For context:

Human evolution is complex because populations of our ancestors ran around all over the planet for millions of years. The question that raises is the complex issue of finding precise fossils that can clarify ** exactly ** which pre-humans gave literal birth to Homo sapiens. That is not required, however, for our basic understanding. ‘Missing link’ is a rotten term, by the way.

How will the article end in Part III of Gleissner's hit piece?

Cheers.

===> I wouldn’t call that a ‘missing link’ problem because it is clear that pre-humans did indeed give rise to modern humans. In that sense there are no missing links, we would just always like to find more for the sake of detail and clarity.

It’s complicated, and the story seems likely to get *more* complicated as we find more good fossils.

Do people really never face any hidden costs or surprises with surgeries in countries with single-payer healthcare like the NHS?

Which ancestors do you need connections for? Modern Homo sapiens to Homo erectus, or something earlier? Which part of our family tree is not clear at a basic level??