Yes but, as Diamond argues, they didn't have large enough animals to domesticate because large american mammals that hadn't co-evolved with humans were exterminated in about 1000 years when the Americas were colonised by humans about 11k years ago.
Not having cows and pigs and horses is a huge disadvantage.
Yes, I did read his book, and know about his argument about domesticated animals. That lack didn't prevent the Aztecs and Mayans from building an empire of stone buildings.
They did have moose and deer and llamas and bears and goats and bison. I don't know if there's any proof they can't be domesticated given enough generations, time and patience. Wolves and foxes can be domesticated.
The Aztecs and Mayas built an empire of stone buildings, sure. And they were still proudly building their stone buildings in the 1500s, almost 7000 years after the pyramids.
Lack of plough animals doesn't extinguish the human creative spirit, it just slows it down a lot.
It is curious why bison were not domesticated. I did a bit of research and could not find a clear reason (some suggestions that maybe Aurochs lived in forests and smaller herds, and that may have made them easier to domesticate... but that seems weak).
I'm wondering how much is due to what I'd call the Harari perspective, in Homo Deus - that Eurasians also invented the "god-centric worldview package" that shifted the view of the world from a more animistic perspective (where all beings share the world and so treating animals in the absolutely horrific ways that domestication and agriculture requires is just unthinkable, since they are seen as other beings sharing the world with us) to the "gods and humans" perspective (where god created humanity, and then every other being is just subservient and lacks a soul and therefore can be exploited, murdered, treated like goods, etc).
Mesoamerican religions, despite all the human sacrifice, did see animals and plants as intrinsically valuable and spiritually significant. Native Americans in the North definitely did that too (and they had more exposure to bisons). That would perhaps have led them not to seek to domesticate animals.
It is curious (to me) that no culture emerged that even tried, though (that culture would likely have outcompeted everyone else).
You are being very silly. North Africa is oriented East-West in a way that allowed it to participate in the easy exchange of flora, fauna, culture and technology with the greater East-West zone that extends from Portugal to China. Saharan Africa is dominated by the Sahara Desert, which is a huge barrier to exchange. Sub-Saharan Africa is oriented mainly North-South, in comparison with the greater Mediterranean exchange region the Diamond outlines.
North Africa is included in Diamond's Mediterranean exchange zone. And that zone extends out of Europe to the Fertile Crescent, at the very least, and arguably to India and China as well. Africa's two zones are separated by the largest and most inhospitable desert on earth. There is no advantage in having two.
That is in fact the core idea Diamond is expressing.
Domesticatable flora and fauna from a huge and ecologically diverse geographic region were easily diffused around the entire zone. The difficulty of migrating horses or sheep across the Sahara, or turkeys and llamas across the Darien Gap, is much much higher. Sub-Saharan Africa started with few large animals suitable for domestication, and importing new ones was comparably difficult.
Not having cows and pigs and horses is a huge disadvantage.