It's very unfortunate to see the parent has been down-voted for linking the Wikipedia page for an article which has over 1,000 citations - mind you citations are a key metric for the credibility of science, for good and for worse.
The science is not debunked by a blog post on nautil.us.
If the author is very sure of their argument then it would be of greater scientific merit for them to review the original data and other data, and report the fact of the data not matching what was reported in the original study, as well as proposing their own hypothesis for future work.
But the author's blog post claims an ad-absurdum proof, while ignoring that their proof doesn't extend to the difference in height between 21 year old males and females, despite that being cited as being an equivalent effect size. It's this kind of thing that means cited scientific work appears in the Wikipedia article, and Nautilus blog posts do not.
Edit: dis-disclosure I have nothing to do with the person who wrote the parent comment, just an observer
