Peopel in /r/History realy dislike Jared Diamond teori that geographic luck did give European the advantages to dominate the world. I have try to ask what the main flaw of the teori is, but get som difficult to interpreted answer that say he cherry pick, he is rasist etc but no real concrete example (that I can interpreted the boot write a wall of text but I fail to see concrete example) is ther a person on AskHistorian who can give a concrete example where Jared Diamond teori fail.
Since a good deal of that /r/history automod response was based on what I've previously written, I'll first direct you to the Frequently Asked Questions section of our wiki on historian's views of Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as a specific look at the flaws in two different chapters of GG&S, Chapter 3, Collision at Cajamarca written by another scholar and Chapter 11, Lethal Gift of Livestock before diving further with this answer. I will also point you to a multi-part series I wrote that sought to correct many of the issues with the theses of GG&S in regards to the conquest of the Americas. Due to the specifics of my research background I only feel comfortable discussing portions of the book dealing with the conquest of the Americas, as well as those portions discussing infectious disease history. No one scholar can explain every issue with the book, so I hope my fellow flairs can comment as well.
To provide a grand overview of issues with the book most historians believe Diamond uncritically examines the documentary record of contact in the Americas, he fails to address native agency in contact while diminishing the influence of non-European peoples in throughout time, and he fails to discuss multiple hypotheses behind pretty much every topic, instead choosing only to discuss those that support his narrative.
The essay on the Collision at Cajamarca cited above does a wonderful job breaking down the issues with Diamond's interpretation of the Pizzaro's entrada into the Inca Empire, and the second essay in the myths of conquest series discusses how uncritically examining the paper trail of conquest, papers written by biased narrators for their own goals and own gains, leads to a flawed, highly simplified "great man" interpretation of conquest. In truth, most early conquistadors in the Americas failed. Poor planning, fierce resistance, infighting among conquistadors themselves, and hostile terrain doomed the bulk of entradas. Guns and steel were not superpowers, and emerging data suggests that though epidemic diseases did negatively influence Native American populations, their influence alone has been exaggerated. The story of conquest was much, much more complex and dragged on for centuries. Diamond really omits much of this messy history, choosing a more streamlined version of events.
This brings us to my second main issue: native agency. To support a "great man" narrative and explain the seemingly unstoppable tsunami of European advancement in the New World Diamond omits huge swathes of Native American history, and diminishes their role in the unfolding drama of contact. Partly this bias results from an uncritical examination of Spanish sources which ignore the role of native allies, and partly his version of contact omits the story of centuries of Native American resistance, rebellion, and revolt that show conquest was no easy venture. Check out this AMA on Native American Rebellion, Revolt, and Resistance to see how the need to continue to fight to complete the conquest extended throughout the Empire, and across multiple centuries.
Finally, on the claim of "cherry picking", Diamond presents only those hypotheses which support his positions, and weaves them together to form a wonderful "just so story". As I mentioned in the discussion of chapter 11 cited above, one of those theories was the domestic origins of infectious diseases. Put briefly per the domestic origins hypothesis, Europeans had more domesticated herd animals, therefore they had more opportunity to become infected by diseases from those herd animals compared to Native American populations. Per Diamond, after contact this mismatch in their arsenal of infectious diseases meant Amerindians died in droves from novel diseases while Europeans advanced without issue. There is just one problem: domestic origins was a hypothesis, one of many equally good/better hypotheses, explaining the origin of human pathogens. Diamond presents domestic origins, and multiple other theories throughout the book, as gospel without addressing the place of those small theories in the wider historical discussion. This is particularly frustrating when combined with his lack of in text citations so the reader is left without the ability to fact-check the author.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask follow up questions. The book is massive in scope, and almost any analysis of it's flaws is subject to meandering trying to address multiple issues.
For further reading...