Evolution is not goal oriented.
1 People would be able to fly
Do you realize the massive amounts of tradeoffs we'd have to have in order to be able to even get off the ground? Besides, there apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of our evolution to evolve flight.
2 Animals would be able to talk
The social ones have their means of communication and it seems to be sufficient for them. There apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of their evolution to evolve speech like we did.
3 People? would have radar like bats
Actually, it seems we can do something similar, if not to the same degree. Besides that, people are visual animals. There apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of our evolution to evolve a system like echolocation.
4 People would have fur and not have to wear clothes
People in all regions wear some sort of clothing. Some need to protect from heat and sun. Some seem to be purely for showing status within their group.
5 People would be able to see in the dark
People are diurnal animals. There apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of our evolution to evolve great night vision.
6 People would be able to hear like dogs
People are visual animals. And there apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of our evolution to evolve that type of hearing.
7 People would be able to smell like dogs
People are visual animals. And there apparently was not a big enough advantage and/or raw material to work with during the rest of our evolution to evolve that type of hearing.
8 People would be able to eat their food without cooking it
We used to eat everything raw. Then we discovered that we can cook it.
9 Animals would be able to think
How do you know that they can't? Evidence suggests that at least some non-human animals show some degree of thinking.
10 Animals would be able to recognize beauty
How do you know they can't? How do you know they don't define beauty differently than we do (just as different people or people groups will define it differently from each other). You can't say they can't. And, tell me, what evolutionary advantage does 'recognizing beauty' afford? Maybe it's not an advantage for non-human animal species.
@thinking allowed, ozznova, giveitaday: Not all bats use echolocation, and bats in general have decent sight. Echolocation is useful if your prey moves erratically and is in mid-air. It is not necessary if your prey doesn't move and is often brightly colored.
