Metaphores 3 (Wallace vs Darwin)

Here, of course, things get muddy. When Alfred Russel Wallace became a creationist, he did so because he couldn't explain that "natural selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a few degrees superior to that of a ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of a philosopher".
Stephen Jay Gould on the other hand labeled Wallace as a extreme adaptionist, one who ignores the possibility of "exaptations": adaptive structures that are fortuitously suited to other roles if elaborated.
Could we really be playing chess, expanding calculi equations on black holes and programming DNA sequences just by "exaptations"?
isn't' that too long a shot for a ecological examptation?
Where else can we see such talent bugging randomly?
If our brain has evolve to be the fittest,
Why would a man spend his whole life composing Nocturnes for the piano?
Why would another man spend his days building a nuclear bomb?

Where else can we see such diversity in other species?
More soon.

Metaphores 2

It might be said that the origin of metaphores relies on the fundamental blocks of language: space, force, agency and causation. These four bricks can be explained from an evolutionary view, but other than that it has been proven hard to assess why the human mind is adapted to think more abstrusely. Steven Pinker says that we can hardly get rid of our metaphorical minds, even if we try. Pinker acknowledges that by trying to escape one level of metaphors, we bump into another one. Say mathematics. Galileo wrote that “the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics; without its help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it”.
Little has been said on the creative nature of metaphores: on developing metaphores, we find new things. Say poetry, painting, etcetera. It is not the poetry or the painting by themselves that have been created, but a whole new stage to understand the world.