The research behind that article is extremely problematic. See e.g. [1] and [2]. The WP article adds its own overinterpretations to it, such as as the nonsensical "But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying."

1: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612

2: http://languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/ultraconserv...