Eeeh, either you cited the wrong article, or I'm very confused. That paper, and what's written in your comment, actually supports what the original article says

Eeeh, either you cited the wrong article, or I'm very confused. That paper, and what's written in your comment, actually supports what the original article says. It's the same thesis, actually. The paper that you link to is even written by R. Jacobson, the author of the book that's cited in the article; it supports the article's position and addresses your specific objections. So it's a highly contested theory, but you cite a paper supporting it? What that paper does argue is against "in the beginning, there was one language" theories, which is not the same thing at all. Granted, the original submission goes a bit overboard. It's not "nearly every language", it's about 55% of all languages for "mama" as mother, and 55% for "papa"/"baba" as father, there's a lot of mixing m/p/b (the labial consonants) and so on. But both you, and the paper you link to, are supporting that position, essentially.