Philosophy of linguistics as science

The difference between bees and other animals is that they cannot create novel sentences or communication systems. For example, we can move a word around in a sentence (within the rules of grammar of the language in question), and it will still have the same meaning. A bee uses a figure eight to communicate some thing, but in order to communicate that thing again, it has to repeat the same thing; in other words, there is no creativity, and humans have this. And this is the problem with this view, according to the innatist.
One of the arguments in reply is that how can a child or a human be born with knowledge of all the languages' grammar?

I have read about genes being turned on and off, but it seems probable that if most living things had the gene for a universal grammar, at least more species than humans should have it turned on. Moreover, it makes sense that some humans would have the gene turned off. This may be the case with some genetic deficiencies in language, but I wonder if it is the same gene that has all the "secrets and rules to grammar."

These are some of the arguments, that I cannot get passed.

Well I'm not one to try and convince you. I'm not completely convinced myself. But all we can do is share the knowledge we are aware of and be open to new and valid research.

I have often noted the unique human ability to create new words to express new concepts as the main difference between us and animals. And the pliability of our language structures is unparalleled. But on personal experience alone, I must consider Chomsky's proclamation of a "universal grammar" to possibly be satisfied by the universal grammar of DNA shared by every living organism known to humanity.

Since all life forms don't all form the same genetic faculties, I see no reason why a piss ant should possess grammatical abilities any more than humans require antennae. Our evolutionary circumstances may not have required it.

That is very interesting and something to think about.