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.