[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c...
That work fails to support Chomsky’s assertions. The research suggests a radically different view, in which learning of a child’s first language does not rely on an innate grammar module.
Instead the new research shows that young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand the relations among things.
These capabilities, coupled with a unique human ability to grasp what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen.
Chomsky has been saying for literal decades that language is likely a corollary to the basic reasoning skills that set humans apart, but people still think UG means “kids are born knowing what a noun is” :(
This also reminds me of evolution. Some people looked at discoveries in epigenetics and declared that it disproved Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckian evolution.
Sure, Darwin's theory of natural selection combined with random variation at the point of reproduction does not explain 100% of evolution, but it is still covers most of it.