Nonsense. If you can provide a confirmed example of a ‘snakes-from-lizards’ type of transition, I would be glad to examine it.
No, the nonsense is demanding a specific example, one that science hasn't yet found (because snakes generally do not leave fossils due to the lack of hard tissues), and using that to declare that 'macroevolution' is nonsense. Especially when what you really mean is that they are actually totally unrelated to each other, an unjustified assumption which is almost always based on the Biblical 'kinds' argument.
If evolution adequately explained soup-to-humans, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
explain it adequately. If it didn't, then it wouldn't serve as the cornerstone of biology. If you want something that doesn't explain biology adequately, you should look to intelligent design, because that does not adequately explain anything in biology. It's equivalent to saying Bill Gates designed Windows without giving the slightest detail how he went about it, an 'explanation' which has no explanatory power whatsoever. Even though it's verifiably true (which is manifestly not true of intelligent design), it's still worthless as an explanation of how he made Windows - the same mistake that advocates of intelligent design consistently make. On top of that, they can't even be sure whether there was a designer at all, let alone being able to tell if it was a group effort or a solo project.
If you're convinced that there is a designer, confirmation bias (seeing what you expect to see) will fool you into seeing evidence of design where there is none. Indeed, that's the most likely reason why the evidence seems to support what you believe so strongly - because you believed you knew what you would find before you ever started looking at the evidence. That's why scientists have to work really hard to overcome their biases when they perform experiments. Otherwise they'd find what they expected to see, and not what was really there to see.
There was a time when your accusation would have probably been true. I am not going to take the time to explain my lengthy journey from belief to severe doubt and back to belief. Suffice to say, I *may* have incorporated a bias into my interpretations at one time but that is no longer needed to influence my beliefs based on the information available.
What makes you think that you aren't still incorporating a bias into your interpretations? Biases are tricky like that, especially when you're dealing with something you can't really prove exists in the first place. If you can't or won't honestly admit doubt in something, then the odds are very high that you're suffering from confirmation bias and are letting it influence your perceptions and judgment. And it's evident talking to you that you've pretty effectively squelched any doubts you might still have that your "intelligent designer" exists.