Since this is freshman-level "think, don't believe", here's an equally valid counterargument at roughly the same level. In Heinrich's book "The Secret of our Success" on cumulative cultural evolution, he gives an example of pre-Columbus American cultures whose diet was based on bitter manioc (a.k.a. cassava). Like the name suggests, in its raw form it's too bitter to eat, but these cultures evolved a set of tradition…
"Think for yourself" is humanity's adaptation of forager ants[0]. Sure, many will be lost, but we need those people that hunt for novelty because it eventually benefits everyone else. You could even think of historical figures that advanced society as the forager ants of our culture. I'm not sure what the benefit would be if everyone chose to be one, though. The hive mind is an interesting phenomenon, it seems that t…
I don't think 'natural selection' makes a bidirectional claim in this way. Not every gene expression is an advantageous mutation. In other words, a lot hinges on your interpretation of 'advantage'. Darwin's observations of advantage explained difference, whereas a mutation which leads to similar traits in organisms would not have an advantage per se--it's just mutation, replication, selection. repeat.
This is not my field of study. Maybe someone else can correct me or say this better...