Well, when you do have some idea what neo-Darwinism is (regular old Darwinism filled out and detailed according to the recent discoveries of the mechanisms of inheritance), you will understand why there is no "inherent contradiction" there. Meanwhile, you are not learning anything here. You are making exactly the same errors of reasoning and mistaken assumptions you have been making for many months now. How could inheritance by genome, with "the gene" as the unit of inheritance (more or less by definition), prevent said genome from governing the development of an organism that can learn to override "inborn" traits? The only possibility I see as a basis for such a presumption is some notion that the gene is controlling the "inborn" behaviors in action, that genetic inheritance of behavioral traits implies the behaviors are being governed by the genes as they happen. "The gene did it" as a parallel to "the devil made me do it" or "god did it". And for that framing of the world - that there is a puppetmaster, and the Darwinists are claiming the gene is it - I tend to blame an upbringing in dogmatic theism.