I'm saying that "innate talent" is an emergent property caused by all the same chaotic cause and effect as any other part of a person's thoughts and feelings.
So we've gone from my hand-wavey definition of 'innate' talent to your hand-wavey definition of 'emergent' talent.
I don't think we are really saying different things here - both schemes admit the possibility that a given person may have a much greater affinity for a given set of tasks, and that it may be arbitrarily hard for a person with a different set of affinities to excel in the same way... So at this point, I'm not sure what the distinction buys us, in terms of the present debate?
Also, to back up for a moment to a genetic basis for talent, I think this (well researched) blog posting on musical talent is worth at least a cursory reading.
If we are not in control of developing our talents or the talents of others they may as well be genetic. The point isn't really whether they are genetic, but whether we can control them. Since both of you have established that we cannot control them, even if you use different justifications, there is no more reason to argue.
Well, that's no fun.