Are you really arguing that we don't have an instinct for acquiring language?
> My book assesses the many arguments used to justify the language-instinct claim, and it shows that every one of those arguments is wrong. Either the logic is fallacious, or the factual data are incorrect (or, sometimes, both). The evidence points the other way. Children are good at learning languages, because people are good at learning _anything_ that life throws at us — not because we have fixed structures of knowledge built-in.
> A new chapter in this edition analyses a database of English as actually used by a cross-section of the population in everyday conversation. The patterns of real-life usage contradict the claims made by believers in a “language instinct”.
> The new edition includes many further changes and additions, responding to critics and taking account of recent research. It has a preface by Paul M. Postal of New York University.
> The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate ends by posing the question “How could such poor arguments have passed muster for so long?”
And how do you explain the fact that humans can only gain native fluency if they learn a language before a certain age? Or the fact that zero instruction is required for children to learn to speak a language fluently? Or that children of immigrants will always prefer to speak in the language of their peers (rather than their parents)? Or that children of two separate groups of immigrants, when mixed socially, will spontaneously create a creole language?
I didn't say that, and I think you know I didn't say that.
I'm not going to engage in a discussion where you beat up on your imagined strawman.
You can go read the literature on language acquisition at your convenience. My understanding (as stated above) is that this is an unsettled question and research is ongoing.
In contrast, something like breastfeeding really is an instinctive behaviour that infants can do automatically without being taught.