As we know human evolution began in Africa, yet Africa still came behind Eurasia in the production of guns, germs, and steel. It was europeans who conquered and colonized africans instead of vis-versa even though Africa received such a head start. With this said, I believe that if humans would have taken their first steps in Mesoamerica, there would be little difference in the modern turn of events. I don't feel as though this thought should be surprising because if we simply place these three areas in order of alignment of human migration, Afrcia came first, then Eurasia, and third came Mesoamerica. Now supposing humans began in Mesoamerica first, they would most likely then have spread to Eurasia and finally to Africa. There is something here that doesn't change. Eurasia always stays in the middle. Africa came first and still got conquered by Europe so I believe then that if Mesoamerica would've came first, Europe would have still conquered and the only thing that would have change would be that Mesoamerica would be the new Africa. I believe this because the animals would've evolved alongside Mesoamericans would have been afraid of them and wouldn't have been able to be domesticated so wouldn't be useful to help out in farming. However, once arriving in Europe, homosapiens would have probably killed many of the animals there but in Eurasia there were many more locations suitable for farming so more farming would have evolved in Eurasia still. Also more of the same farming because of the alignment of Eurasia and the fact that most of it is in the same region and climate unlike the americas which vary much in climate. It would have been a close race between Eurasia and Mesoamerica only because Africa would have dropped out of the race because it was the last and because of its sahara desert. I don't think it would have been as easy for europe to conquer the americas under those circumstances as it was in reality but it would have still won.