[Filo]

Were you neutral on the topic of the origin of life but, through study, examination of evidence and rational extrapolation, were compelled to a belief in interspecies evolution forced by the preponderance and sheer exclusivity of that evidence?

I'm not quite sure we both have the same definition for "interspecies evolution" but I do believe that species evolved from other species (i.e. that a group of members from one species diverged from the "main line" of that species and eventually lost the ability to interbreed with them.)

Those branches in the evolutionary tree are both obvious and well documented so yes, I was "compelled to a belief in interspecies evolution forced by the preponderance and sheer exclusivity of that evidence."

While there is plenty of room for clarification of details, the concept that species evolved from prior species is clear to me and others who actually studied this - especially those who make it their life's work.

The only alternative is some form of mysticism, of which ID is only one example.

[William Terrell]

but I do believe that species evolved from other species

Yes, "belief" is the word. No intelligent person, one not convinced one way or the other, would be convinced by examination of the evidence only.

No, "branches" are not well documented. Otherwise there would be no controversy, especially among scientists, and there is plenty.

Those who make evolution their life's work have a vested interest that evolution (trans-species) be true.