Argument for and against Innate and Learned Behavior

Innate behavior is slightly different from what has been learned over a period of time. This has been documented time and again because innate and learned behaviors represent differential aspects of human growth and development which is easily distinguishable. Even though innate behavior is more or less God-gifted, learned behavior derives its basis from how an individual feels about the environment around him and what he seeks to learn from it with the passage of time. This implicates for his success by indulging in acts and behaviors which make him into a tough person through which he can cash upon the hard work and dedication that he demonstrates eventually.
Experimental investigations have shown regularly that both innate and learned behaviors are intrinsically tied with one another. This suggests for their inter-relational angle which is magnified all the same. Also what is deemed as significant here is the fact that both innate and learned behaviors depend upon how the individual understands his own domains; backed up by solid comprehension of how things shape up and which need to be considered by the behavioral patterns that are in full action. These evidential bases have largely dictated how arguments have been changed over a period of time and what man has learned during his journey to achieve supremacy over his own self (Emmett, 2011).
The argument that could be raised in favor of the innate and learned behaviors is inherently holding more ground than the other way around. This is because these individuals have an insight which is backed up with knowledge and information which they make use of as and when required. It also implies for their eventual success within the related settings, making them feel connected with the behavioral patterns that are showcased by them in a consistent way.
The argument against the innate and learned behaviors is generally vaguer because of the presence of too...