>>bassra+Tp5
No. Just because words are not needed for cognitive processes, does not mean that people still can and do think in language. The properties of that language could then influence thought. This is known as the Weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (note "hypothesis", not "theory").
>>xiande+7r5
This also doesn't say that the non-literal cognitive process is DNA-wired logic. Could very well be culturally constructed as well.
IMO this rather reinforce Sapir-Whorf positions than refute, it means more than literal language/grammar influence thoughts. That's directly against UG theory that predetermined rigid grammar is all you need.