[Please go there and grapple with it if you wish, or just go there, get the gist and come back.]
It's not that Jerry Coyne's facts aren't necessarily facts, or whatever. It's that this point of view is too simple and is obviously biased toward some stories, ignoring others. And this particular one he shares in this post has been the same old story for a long long time.
What about the other side of the body size sexual dimorphism story?
What about the women?
Selection could well be the reason they stop growing before men and why they end up having smaller bodies than men, on average.
Perhaps men can make babies while growing, but perhaps women can't. Energetically, metabolically. So reproduction wins over growth. We reach sexual maturity and stop growing. Is that just a coincidence?
Why doesn't this (and other tales) fit alongside the big-aggressive-males-take-all explanation for sexual dimorphism? #evolution
Not only is it absent, but selection on women's bodies be the driving force (if such a thing could be identified) and, yet, it's as if women don't exist at all in these tales except as objects for males to fight over or to fuck (but *thankfully* there's that female choice!).
Knowledgeable people aren't objecting to facts, as Coyne suggests. They're objecting to biased story-telling and its annoying and harmful consequences, which Coyne doesn't acknowledge or grapple with in his piece.
Check out the discussion that ensued starting here:
Evolution is true but people with large followings should fear the cultural consequences of their adaptive tales. https://t.co/VMtOGBbtH5— Holly Dunsworth (@HollyDunsworth) December 16, 2016
UPDATE: Last night Jesse Singal at NYMag wrote a thoughtful piece about it: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/not-all-critiques-of-evolutionary-psychology-are-the-same.html