So this snip from Wiki, research cited in article, strongly suggests that the most recent common ancestor, TMRCA, was around 2000-5000yo
"The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, with an estimate of the human MRCA living about 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, that is, estimating the IAP to be about three times as distant as the MRCA. Note that both the matrilineal and the patrilineal human MRCAs are far more remote still, dating to some 150,000 and 90,000 years ago, respectively." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point
Let's not forget that these estimates are based on models that make presumptions, ie ancestry and old earth, in attaining these figures. Yet, although biased, they still put the MRCA to humans as recent and many dates align with biblical creation and/or the flood scenario.
Creationists researchers are also able to provide evidence of creation, a deceent back to 2 individuals, and no common ancestor with any ape. It does not matter that this evidence is refuted by evo researchers as they refute each other all the time yet still manage to agree 'it all evolved'.
The fact that evolutionists have not found any common ancestors, or have found some that have been reclassified as sister species, only adds weight to creationists assertations.
Looking back, your researchers may have found the equivalent of a mouse, cat and dog fossils and alledge this demonstrates how a mouse species evolved into a dog. This is all your researchers have done. They have found any old creature, and suggested it is a transition. eg pakecetus and ambulocetus are two different kinds, a variety of deer and an aquatic creature whose skeleton resembles a crocodile whose limbs have been misaligned in reconstruction to fraudulently wish grab at ancestry to a deer.
The original poster has rightfully identified that no common ancestors have been found and this lends weight to a creation scenario.
Evo research and postulated evidence for same is no more than a fleeting wish list, unfortunately for evolutionists. It must be very frustrating for evos to have to defend their evidence with great vigour and then have to recant with embarassment, so often. Yet you say this is normal and expected. This proves TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive power and just responds to the evolutionary environment. Toe is the only thing macroevolving around here.
Even Ardi, who is meant to be very similar to the human/chimp common ancestor, is hovering over the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past along with LUCA, knucklewalking ancestry and so much more trashed evidence.
Of course creationists already knew that Ardi is just a variety of ape and has nothing to do with mankinds ancestry. It appears it is going to take evolutionists a little while longer to work this out for themselves.