Have you read the various twin studies on development? Some of them are old but still valid.Look at the evolutionary chain. From monkeys to proto humans to man the line gets taller (diet I guess?) and we are as a whole still getting taller, but according to you that's not evolution anymore. And starving a person to near death for their entire lives might stunt their growth, but merE nutritional value of meals alone will not. You need to actually read " The Origin of Species". If you say you have then you should re-read it, because your description "only if there is some reproductive advantage" is dead wrong. Your understanding of evolution is limited. You continuing to argue points you want to be true without anything real to back it up, we'll you used the word obtuse. You don't realize that you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Darwinism. You are merely shooting the messenger.
Height is a combination of factors. Genetic predisposition and expression is one set, diet is another set. Monozygotic twins brought up separately in different environments grow to different sizes and that seems to largely depend on environmental factors - including diet. Hormonal factors during adolescence and childhood also affect growth and these can be altered by both genetics and environmental factors. To be 'tall', diet and genetics need to be on your side. That's not to say that you can't be tall for other reasons though, sometimes a hormonal difficulty will express itself as either shortness or tallness. So it's a complex web of causality.
Over the last few hundred years in the Western World, the average height has increased largely as a result of improved healthcare and nutrition. The genetic base for most of the European population has changed little but the expression of height has changed and we are - on average - taller. Again, healthcare and diet and particularly during childhood and adolescence.
It's not rocket surgery to suggest that a young child that is inadequately fed will have developmental differences - including being shorter - than a child that is adequately fed. The genetics change very slowly but the height of the average European has increased significantly.
Evolutionary psychologists have said at various points that traits viewed as 'attractive' by society are usually indicators of good health in that society. Therefore it's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that if height is an indicator of health, height in itself can be seen as an 'attractive' trait, the taller people breed more and both their genetic predisposition to height may be passed on more regularly.
What I'm not saying is that this is an evolutionary change. It could be self-selected breeding, like with dogs! The fundamental genetic base of all modern dogs is the same - canis lupus familiaris - but there are more varieties of dog than any other single specie on Earth. The domestic dog is all the same species - they can all interbreed and provide viable offspring so even though their appearance and size can be enormously different, the genetic base is fundamentally the same.
Diet and genetic expression are both factors that decide height.