Based upon the research that I could find, there does not seem to be a difference between natural and adopted children in regards to nature v. nurture. This being said, the is a very large difference between raising children according to nature v. nurture.
A child who is not able to create the initial bond with the "mother" is more likely to have issues later in life. One example of this is RAD- Reactive Attention Disorder. A child with RAD is unable, or refuses, to have a true relationship with another person. Given the initial bonding never took place (lack of nurture), the child simply is subconsciously unable to create a bond with another person.
An example where nature is seen as being influential could be twin studies. In this study, each twin is placed into a different home and a long-term takes place. This study looks at the affects of both nature and nurture. The outcome focuses upon how each child develops over time. In some cases, the twins are eerily similar (even being raised apart). Other times, one could not recognize the fact that they are twins outside of looks given each are so internally different.
If your talking about how nature is the basis of psychological development, and then nurture 'moulds' this development, than these are my two examples. sorry if this isnt what your looking for.
1. A child who has naturally agressive tendencies may learn that being aggressive is an effective way of achieving goals, which could make them become bullies
2. A person who is born with a tendency to be more sociable, may learn that when he or she is friendly, they are rewarded with positive attitudes, and continue to be more sociable from then on.
as for that last question u wrote, im not quite sure.