"Instantly Learned"? Limiting my response to animals excluding humans, wouldn't that simply be another way of saying "instinct"?. I think the nature vs. nurture debate applies mostly to those beings with some sort of higher cognitive ability. A turtle simply "knows" how to swim because it's genetically programmed to do so, something like a higher form of a reflex (for lack of a better description). If it didn't it would die either from predation or starvation.
If I remember correctly human babies have the "innate" ability to hold their breath underwater. However, some babies need encouragement out of the womb (spanking?) to cry. A spanking creates pain and all organisms, in the most primitive sense, try to somehow avoid harm. Crying (calling for help) happens to be the only mechanism a baby would have (I'm getting off the beaten path here now).
Anyway, I don't believe in 100% nature or nurture, but instead a combination of both. There are gifted children in this world. For example, two children can be raised in exactly the same environment, but one excels scholastically, whilst the other is better at sports.
Here's another hypothetical, but realistic example:
There are two girls developing in wombs with different levels of estrogen. The one with higher levels of estrogen will have a more well-connected neural system in the brain and between the left and right sides (because that's one of the things estrogen does during development). This girl, given the same childhood environment, has a good possibility of being better at multi-tasking, language skills, and even overall cognitive ability.
Because "Instant Learning" isn't testable, to me it's kind of side-stepping the issue and taking a pseudo-scientific approach.
my $0.02
