How convincing is the view that we are born with at least some innate

knowledge?
When considering this, one would have to define what is meant by innate
knowledge. There are certainly some things babies are born knowing such as
how to suck, be it their fingers, bottles, or breasts. One could argue they also
know how to breathe but that could simply be an automatic or reflex action
performed by their body. While much more may be known about the
development of foetuses in the womb, more still exists that is yet to be
discovered or ascertained.
Depending on how fine a line is drawn on the definition of innate knowledge,
because what is being considered is knowledge they are born with, this could be
what they automatically know or could indeed have been learnt before their
birth.
As to how convincing this view is, admittedly, there certain things which we are
never taught per se, but could indeed have been learnt. Relatively little is known
about DNA, but it is said to be the code of life, then it is perhaps plausible that
information that is vital to survival can be passed on genetically, thereby making
it part of our being and something we could not know. This theory would validate
the claim that we are born with some innate knowledge if proved true. This
would also be the case if it came to light that we learn some things before birth
as it would be innate knowledge we are born with.
It can be noted that there are defining characteristics of babies other than
physical appearances which they all exhibit. This would be a further point in
favour of this view, making it the more so convincing. What has been asserted
throughout this argument is that there are definitely
things we are born knowing meaning it would be hard to prove contrary to this
view of being born with innate knowledge.