I am talking about the pretty much anything that refers without references to the idea that 'humans evolved to X' or 'it is human nature to X'. My background is in anthropology, with comparatively little exposure to evolutionary psychology, but in my experience the ethnographies, papers, and meta-studies that this information would ideally be based on are very clear about their shortcomings.

However, even when your data is a handful of surviving and marginalized ethnic groups, field notes from the 50s, and some promising bones, you can make some good strong statements about behavior, diet, etc. This leads to conclusions that are highly technical and precise, but with limited scope. Most science writers want exactly the opposite -- non-technical and broadly applicable. So they latch onto some factoids, make 'reasonable' generalizations, and ignore the fact that most anthropologists are very clear on what is known and what is supposed.

There are examples of anthropologists giving interesting theories and arguing with limited data -- the aquatic ape hypothesis is a perennial example (now long obsolete). But this is in no way a problem in the field; every science has hypotheses, and within the field the evidence, or lack of evidence, is clearly stated.