No, i just mean, for a lot of psychology you can just teach yourself the content really easily. You can't do the practical research for a PhD/MRes independently.
This might not be the case say if you want to learn fancy techniques such as functional brain imagine, or any biological methods which require lab time. The research component, however, you can't really do on your own.
I agree that doing 1 or 2 terms more work in an MRes compared to a MSc won't necssarily make you more prepared to do a PhD. A lot of it depends just on what you want to do, I personally prefer doing research than exams :P
Laland & Brown's second edition of sense and nonsense goes through thre differences. They are really fairly similar in lots of respects to the methods, but the topics they study tend to be quite different, and evo psych has a much worse reputation for poor quality research, although thats often because its harder to rigorously study the evolution of human social class than the human fossil record, for example.
Topics often studied by evo psych:
--HUMANS (rarely other animals, not always the case though).
--Human gender differences
--Social Class
--Sexual Attraction, mating strateies
--Parenting / Kinship
Topics often studied by bio anth:
--Primatology
--Paleontology ad primate evolution
--Survival, adaptation to different environments
--Non-industrialised human societies (hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, etc.)
Evo psych is fairly contraversial, and essentially it boils down to social scientists objecting to social phenomena (e.g. class, gender) being naturalised, and some biological scientists view evolutionary psychology as being too "adaptationist" (see
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/205/1161/581)
I would flick through textbooks on each topic to get a feel for the difference.