Question: People often say, including those with extensive knowledge in biology, that a certain species of animal will evolve in one way or another:

1. From changing environments.
2. Mutations.
3. Possibly even genetic engineering from human animals.

My question lies in the fact that, aside from the latter option, why haven't any differences in animals'(except humans) markup, morphology, intelligence, DNA, behavior, or any habits changed over thousands or (possibly millions) of years?

A cockroach has had the same behavior it has today [more than 10 million years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous), and there have been no advancements in the species in the slightest bit. 

It makes you question evolution, because why don't other animals (like cockroaches) have any changes over 10+ million years, yet humans, like me and you somewhat, have, in a relative period of time similar to the linked geological period above, evolved from spear tossing hominids into someone brilliant enough to even ponder this question.

If modern humans are the result of mutations in genes, why has no one species over the course of hundreds of millions of years been fit enough, or advanced mentally as we have, or even in any slightest bit?

Answer: 
> 
> aside from the latter option, why haven't any differences in
>  animals'(except humans) markup, morphology, intelligence, DNA,
>  behavior, or any habits changed over thousands or (possibly millions)
>  of years?
> 
> 
> 

What evidence is leading you to that conclusion? For horses, example. (From the talkorigins article):

> 
> The first equid was Hyracotherium, a small forest animal of the early Eocene. This little animal (10-20" at the shoulder) looked nothing at all like a horse. It had a "doggish" look with an arched back, short neck, short snout, short legs, and long tail. It browsed on fruit and fairly soft foliage, and probably scampered from thicket to thicket like a modern muntjac deer, only stupider, slower, and not as agile. This famous little equid was once known by the lovely name "Eohippus", meaning "dawn horse". Some Hyracotherium traits to notice:Legs were flexible and rotatable with all major bones present and
>  unfused. 4 toes on each front foot, 3 on hind feet. Vestiges of 1st (&
>  2nd, behind) toes still present. Hyracotherium walked on pads; its
>  feet were like a dog's padded feet, except with small "hoofies" on
>  each toe instead of claws. Small brain with especially small frontal
>  lobes. Low-crowned teeth with 3 incisors, 1 canine, 4 distinct
>  premolars and 3 "grinding" molars in each side of each jaw (this is
>  the "primitive mammalian formula" of teeth). The cusps of the molars
>  were slightly connected in low crests. Typical teeth of an omnivorous
>  browser.
> 
> 
> 

So from that, you conclude that the DNA, morphology, and intelligence of horses hasn't changed at all in 50 million years?
Evolution is an ongoing process; it has no predetermined goal or direction; it never stops. Nothing ever stops because everything is ever-moving, ever-changing.

Is man more intelligent now than few thousand years ago? Has mankind a better understanding of the phenomenal and noumenal realms now than the people who composed the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Vedas ~2,500 years ago, which was preceded by hundreds if not thousands years of oral transmission (myths) from generation to generation?