Well, the brain is a physical neural network, and evolution seems to have figured out how to generate a (somewhat) copiable model. I bet we could learn a trick or two from biology here.
I suspect there may be trade off undergoing evolutionary selection here, where for some organisms a behaviour is more important from the offset, it's worth encoding more of the behaviour into genes, at what cost I wonder?
It's also possible there is some other mechanism going on at an embryonic stage, a kind of pre-training.
I suspect some of the division is also defined by how complex the task is, or how sensitive the model is to it's own neurons (kind of like PNN). I don't have a well rounded argument, but my instinct is that encoding or pre-training walking is far easier than seeing. Not to mention basic quadrupedal walking/standing is far easier than bipedal, they can learn the more complex coordinated movements after.
A ton of that is probably encoded elsewhere, but no doubt the brain plays a huge part. And somehow, it's all reconstructed for each new "device".
We are not even born with what you might consider basic mental faculties, for example it might seem absurd, but we have to learn to see... We are born with the "hardware" for it, a visual cortex, an eye, all defined by our genes, but it's actually trained from birth, there is even a feedback loop that causes the retina to physically develop properly.
Likewise, kittens with an eye patch over an eye in the same time period remain blind in that eye forever.
Children who were "raised in the wild" or locked in a room by themselves have shown to be incapable of learning full human language.
The working theory is that our brains can only learn certain skills at certain times of brain development/ages.