But 'Innate' is so IN!

Erich Vieth at Dangerous Intersection had an interesting post recently on the use of the word 'innate' in biological, scientific-type contexts, where it seems there's not really a universally agreed upon meaning for it.

I've tended to use it more or less as a dictionary defines it, to mean some quality that just is in a thing. It doesn't have to be learned or installed, and by implication also can't really be removed or practiced away: it's just there.

But the post, arising from a talk the author heard given by a philosophy professor, discusses how this general understanding, while perhaps working fine for poet turns of phrase, is biologically vague and its use in research and scientific texts is somewhat problematic. 

The post talks about some of the things scientists seem to mean when they use the word, including approaches based on seeing traits as typical, as representing adaptiveness of traits, or as indicating fixity of traits.

The post covers this much better than that clumsy summary, and is an intriguing look at how language shapes what we talk about, and certain words may or may not accurately convey uniform impressions of the ideas we try to work with. 

Is what I mean to say the same as what you hear? And is either one of those things a useful summary of reality as best we understand it?

I'm interested in language, so this sort of thing is always good for some happy reflection for me. [Gazing into distance with goofy smile on face]