You are making the assumption complex behavioral traits might be innate. We can look at other species and see how this isn't the case easily. An area might host

You are making the assumption complex behavioral traits might be innate. We can look at other species and see how this isn't the case easily. An area might host a rich history of a certain species. It might be culled one day. It might then go on to be reintroduced, but oftentimes these reintroductions fail because the species that were established in captivity or in another environment entirely do not harbor the learned behaviors that permitted that older exterminated population to survive. Take a human case as well. We have lived in the bush for millions of years. Left to your own devices, would you survive in the bush for very long without having learned to live off the bush from others? Would you expect a feral group of children to have much success establishing a society in the bush? Would they innately know to construct a fire or what shelter designs survive in the sort of environments they reside in? I would not expect any of these traits to be innate at all. Learning to rear young is also something to learn. We are not a species that abandons their young to their own behaviors. We are one that needs to rear our young and teach them behaviors. You see, there is a fitness advantage to leaning off the body in a way, of pairing down the organism to its most basic and necessary parts so that you might survive and breed on less resources while others, bogged down by unneccessary cost centers, are less successfull. As we gained the abilities to teach others things that we have learned, we have also gained an entire world of abilities that would not be innate, or would be much more statistically rare to establish innately (e.g. how many mutations would a human need to be born speaking mathematical proofs? consider this is also weighed against the likelihood that a mutagenic event does not hit on whatever site(s) contribute to this behavior).