IMO, the simplest response to comments of this kind is "So What?" That's not a rhetorical question.

That we "co-evolved" with dogs (but not pigs), or that their "psychology is in tune with ours," or that we have special relationships with dogs (who's "we" btw?) are purely descriptive claims which, by themselves, tell us nothing of moral value.

It would be good to ask them to spell out exactly what they think the moral implications of these claims are.

Do they think, for example, that if a being's psychology is not "in tune with ours" that it's not wrong to kill and harm that being? Do they think that a being's moral status (and the rightness and wrongness of harming that being) depends on whether that being has a relationship with humans?

I wouldn't even bother arguing over the empirical questions about co-evolution or about the personality of pigs. You can just grant them all of this for the sake of discussion. Just ask them to spell out what the hidden moral implications of their claims are. That should be enough to expose how ridiculous these "arguments" are