Just over 13 billion years ago there was a big bang, no one was there to record the event but we still know it happened because we have empirical evidence like cosmic background radiation etc. We do not have to witness every event to work out what happened in the past, all we need is evidence and we can start building a case.
Evolution works in exactly the same way, we do not have to be present to see it (in fact the long time spans required to see evolution in action preclude the possibility of watching it happen) we just have to collect the evidence. I don't agree that fossils or DNA are circumstantial evidence of evolution, in fact I would say that DNA is evolution's equivalent to cosmic background radiation. I would agree that the fact that no-one has been able to falsify evolution is circumstantial, however damning that might be after over one hundred years.
You should remember that in scientific terms that species is the lowest subgroup. In other words two animals that might look identical to you and me could be two completely different species. I would imagine that what gets the creationists in tizzy is when whole families diverge rather than mere speciation. That the evidence for that lies in the fossil record and within DNA makes it no less real.
For some evidence for speciation have a look at the articles I've linked, one is in layman's terms the other is the original paper. Although obviously it is still a bacteria (after all evolution is a one way process) it is radically different to the parent of this bacteria from less than one hundred year ago. It has a new ability that it's predecessors didn't have, as Darwin predicted it has adapted to survive.
Not in a personal sense but in an empirical sense, yes.