Honest, I'll get to the point but have to lay the groundwork. Quotes are all from TFA.
In the late 1800s, Francis Galton—founder of the scientific study of intelligence and a cousin of Charles Darwin—analyzed the genealogical records of hundreds of scholars, artists, musicians, and other professionals and found that greatness tends to run in families. For example, he counted more than 20 eminent musicians in the Bach family. (Johann Sebastian was just the most famous.) Galton concluded that experts are “born.”
Obviously this line of thinking ignores things that nepotism and cronyism easily explains. Obviously Rockefeller wealth means that his kids get the best education, have way more free time to get an education, and more money to pursue projects and education. People that don't have to clean the house, milk the cows, cook the food, etc.. have a whole lot of time on their hands to devote to intellectual advancement.
Nearly half a century later, the behaviorist John Watson countered that experts are “made” when he famously guaranteed that he could take any infant at random and “train him to become any type of specialist [he] might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents.”
Numerous sociological experiments have confirmed this same thing. It's not the genes you are born with as much as the education, life style, and social surroundings you have growing up that matters. Hanging around with great musicians as a youngster results in someone learning music and being a good musician over time. This obviously assumes no disorders that prevent learning and activity.
The 10,000 hour rule seems to work from that same line of thought. Hard work yields results, at least most of the time.
The end of the article however jumps over to the recent flawed study that goes back to eugenics (one of many out of the UK in the last 2 years). That study claims that identical twins can draw pictures more similarly than fraternal twins, therefor genes are the key factor in a persons natural ability to draw. This study is flawed as they obviously ignore every other possible impact on a person's ability to draw a picture, and simply claim "genetics".