First of all, we have enough DNA evidence to show evolution to be true, even if we didn't have a single fossil to look at.
You can deduce that if you’d like but in order for it to be scientific, it needs to be demonstrated using the scientific method otherwise you are just making assumptions.
In short, if one looks only at the evidence, there is no other conclusion that can be reached. There are of course squabbles about some of the details, but the general concept of evolution is so obvious now that to claim that it couldn't have happened requires a lot of blindness to the facts.
Assumptions do not equal science. Unless you can support your conclusions with science, you are claiming that something is science when it is not. Where are the experiments to demonstrate that snakes CAN evolve from lizards?
And your question about microevolution/macroevolution. That is an invention of ID'ers, and not relevant to science.
The author of the article I referenced in the OP makes a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution in order to frame her analogy.
There is plenty online for you to read about the snake/lizard thing. The question that science is trying to answer now is where that change took place, in the water or on land. There are arguments for both. But the questions isn't whether or not it happened. It is only where.
Actually, it is more of a question of “how”, not where….and until there is scientific evidence to support an evolutionary mechanism capable of produce this transition, you are simply assuming that it happened.
While I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your thoughts on the OP, a wall of words is not making your argument very scientific.