This says more about me than her but what bothers me most is this line
"dogs brains have evolved more quickly than cats over millions of years, scientists claim"

Firstly the word she wants is "further" rather than "more quickly", surely?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure scientists aren't "claiming" anything of the sort. They'd be "theorising".
( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:54, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

"Your Mum"

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:58, Reply)

"Funny"

( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:59, Reply)

"I know"

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:59, Reply)

"lol"

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:12, Reply)

Thridly, that's not really how evolution works, is it?
no one gets to be more evolved, it's a continuous process.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:58, Reply)

Hence further.
Although even then it's only in one specific direction.
( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:00, Reply)

I'm still not sure I like"further"
this implied that evolution is directional and has an end point.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:02, Reply)

Kind of semantic this, but the article's talking about brain size as a result of social evolution
so in as much as it's talking about anything, it's talking about a specific end result which dogs are closer to than cats. Further's fine in that context, I think.
( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:05, Reply)

I suppose, but at this point the point, if point there is, is pretty meaningless.
it's not :
"dogs brains have evolved more quickly than cats over millions of years, scientists claim"

Or even:
"dogs brains have evolved further than cats over millions of years, scientists claim"

it's:
"dogs brains have evolved further towards a specific end result than cats over millions of years, scientists claim,"

that end result being better interaction with humans I guess. Anyway that's not evolution, that's selective breeding.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:12, Reply)

So further's still OK as a word
but her article is more wrong than I originally gave her credit for?

I can live with that as a result, I think.
( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:16, Reply)

I supose so, I still thing either the scientists or, rather more likely the DM has a very wrong view of evolution.
I', also unsure how you can talk meaningfully about the evolution of a species that has been bred into existence and continues to be bred by humans. They're not really evolving, are they?
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:20, Reply)

If we're talking about evolution vs breeding
I think it's fair to say that cats evolved to a certain point that made them a good candidate for a pet as a by-product and we've selectively bred them in specific areas like looks etc.

I don't think it's accurate to say that modern cats are entirely the way they are because of human involvement. The vast majority of their genome had been set by the time we started fiddling with them. They were already a small feline well adapted for hunting small animals at night.

It's not fair to say that they aren't sociable, either. They're just not pack animals.
( Kroney, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:28, Reply)