My friends and I were having a big argument over whether walking is innate or not.
In my opinion it is. In everyone else's it is learnt.
I supported my argument with sea turtle babies that are left in the sand to hatch on their own and then walk all the way back to the sea.
They supported theirs with the wild child that is raised by dogs or wolves and hence can only walk on his 4 limbs because this is all he learnt.

Can it be that the nature of walking differs between social and non-social animals? Or between animals that care for their young and those that abandon them?

If it is the case, then does it have to do with evolution? In a sense that as parents began caring for their young (like in humans), walking wasn't required to be innate anymore (and hence no need to spend that DNA over something that can be acquired by learning) and thus it became learnt instead?

                                                                                                                                     Thank you :)

Interesting question!

Walking in humans is complicated by the fact that we are bipedal, tail-less and altricial (we're poorly developed at birth). This means that we need to physically develop to the point where we are capable of walking and then we need to learn how to control our balance, which is made difficult without having four legs, a tail or some kind of counterweight.

Precocious (born with advanced development) animals are born with all of the necessary structures for immediate locomotion and although they need to learn to walk using them this process often takes just minutes (even for something the size of a horse or even an elephant).

To answer your question, humans have an innate ability to walk, but it requires a period of learning (mostly with a parent to provide physical support at the earliest stages) to become accustomed to the unstable mode of walking that humans have evolved.