The domestication if animals has far more to do with the humans domesticating them than the animals.
Jared Diamond's argument is that for an animal to be domesticated it needs to have a very specific collection of traits—tameability and ability to breed in captivity being two important ones—and that there weren't any sufficiently good candidates for domestication in the Americas, Africa, or Australia (besides the llama in South America, which they did domesticate).
With which part of this argument do you disagree? What candidates would you propose for domestication in non-Eurasian continents?
There are also large wild populations.
And it does seem rather obvious on its face that animals exhibiting certain kinds of social behavior, for example, would more readily adapt to a symbiotic relationship with humans than others.
Also why the focus on animals, some of the very best crops we have today (e.g. the potato) were originally bread in the Americas for thousands of years before contact.
Also, North America had buffalo. I fail to see anything inherent in the North American buffalo which would prevent it from being bred to plow a field the same way that the Water Buffalo in Asia was bred.
Most likely the agricultural practices and warfare was different in the Americas which never drove the people living there to breed their animals for the same trades as in Europe and Asia.
So it would probably help if somebody compellingly laid out his hypothesis, at least as it relates to animals, while making some reasonable effort to account for the countless self evident arguments against it.
But I have a deeper problem with Diamond’s book, and the main reason I will probably never read this book, is the fact that I believe he is asking the wrong question. The question of European colonization should not be about capability, but of consequence.
Brutal armies have in the past from all over the world been able to siege, occupy, colonize and genocide vast areas with nothing superior but their brutality. The Mongol army for examlple might have had a superior breed of horses, but what they had above else was complete disregard of the human lives of their victims. Same with the Huns, or the Japanese imperial army, and yes, colonial Europe.
Guns Germs and Steel (the explanation, not the book) sound to me like a post hoc analysis, an overfit if you will, to fit history neatly between the lines, and tie it together with a nice bow. Asking the question, „but how could Europe do this?“ is an extremely colonialist thing to do, a euro-centric world view. If Jared Diamond wanted to do history, he wouldn’t ask this question. He would ask: „what were the consequences of actual people victims of these crimes?“ Yes this is ideology, but I would argue that Diamond is also full of an awful world view which doesn’t fit in historic analysis of this century.
Also, if they are basically useless now, most groups won't even realize there's a point to starting to tame them.