Dramatic effects can be produced by small changes. Knowledge ultimately refers to a specific pattern of synaptic connections in the brain. In this very precise sense, there is probably no innate higher-level knowledge. The developmental process itself lies at the heart of knowledge acquisition. Some complex behaviours may not be acquirable without passing through a developmental pathway.
Development is a process of emergence.
However, the authors repeatedly point out that their purpose is to reach a better understanding of what is innate and of how domain-specific neural and behavioural systems develop, rather than to deny the major role of biological endowment in development, or to deny the fact that the adult mind and brain are highly systematised. What they do argue against is the likelihood that infants are biologically endowed with cortically instantiated representational knowledge. If their arguments are correct, then it is hard to see how their position could be reconciled with there being an innate symbolic language of thought, such as Mentalese. In addition, if 'innate knowledge' entails innate representations, then knowledge of natural kinds, the principles of Universal Grammar, and innate knowledge in other domains would also be inconsistent with the book's central claim. Almost certainly not, since the erstwhile representational nativists would almost certainly join forces with those evolutionary psychologists who posit the existence of many highly specific innate mechanisms, eg.