I will attempt to "preconstruct" this information, by showing the analogy between Chomsky's difference of surface and deep structure has mathmatical equivalences in biology.
This is kind of backwards from the way I think about adaptation, starting from populations as Modulous redacted, but it might be possible to communicate the difference of adaptation in the sense you questioned, either inborn or acquired, by working this way.
Start with the DNA sequence as a ChomskySurface-structure ==> find the deep structure (by higher orders of real numbers(A,B,C,D,..L(Quine does not recognize these, not because they have not been used but because he finds no apparent differences between use of Russell's type approach to ostentation, thus utility is the only requirement for existence)) dividing a newer biometry than is present currently) in terms of sets of photons and electrons. Show via Macrothermodynmaics or some other lawful constraint, that the deep structure is the surface itself (the form visible to the biologist)and reverse linguistically with a show, showing, that the DNA sequence itself was the surface grammatical structure similar to structures in other parts of linguistics not applications.
Adapation if so retained would be either inborn or acquired depending on the reverse transformation, which is actually the forward thought.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-06-2006 01:52 PM