Nations are a logical consequence of heritability and therefore this headline is provably false.
Perhaps instead you meant cultural heritability, like language, foods, etc? The problem is that culture isn't carried in the genes, and disperses quite freely across the world, from ancient to modern times, and cultures actively spread and market their traits over geographic and even linguistic boundaries, so culture is not a very good feature to use to define a nation via heritability.
Human identity has been complex and probably confusing since the first time identity was contemplated, so we invented models like "nation" to serve our political ends (usually to mobilize members of one "nation" against other "nations").
[1] https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/
[2] https://curiosity.com/topics/everyone-on-earth-is-related-cu...
Also, the Out of Africa conjecture Is Made Up: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-afr...
> the first occurring about two million to 1.5 million years ago during the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene epochs; a second during the mid Pleistocene, roughly one million to 500,000 years ago; and ending with the spread of modern humans, 50,000 to 30,000 years in the past.
> The new findings, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, casts doubt on the second migration out of Africa. "[The researchers] are not denying that it happened," Trinkaus says, "just that it was less important than movement across Eurasia."
The degree of second migration is what was brought into doubt, not that all humans today share a common ancestor from the 3rd migration.
Prior to the French Revolution, the idea was that political power devolved from the top (usually by divine right) and whatever people happened to live within the reach of the ruler should do what they were told, if they knew what was good for them.
The boundaries of the state would shift along with the power and influence and military success of the ruler. The modern idea that some people might object to living under one ruler (and thus one state) rather than other, based on some idea of shared history, would have been a strange idea to those used to living in autocratic societies.
Nationalism has been so successful at adhering the support of the masses to the establishment that few today even think to question it.
No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or language.
> and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology should know that.
Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.
Wrong.
> Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.
Right.
But then you lost me with language and culture being heritable (as opposed to strongly influenced by the people you grow up around, who of course are usually related to you).
Your comments seem to be objecting to the term "Nation" (which comes across as a pedantic nit-pick), as well as a nativist argument around heritable traits (which sounds vaguely racist, but dressed up in fancy language).