You credit geological uplift for forming the Grand Canyon, while oddly maintaining that the altitude of the Colorado River remained roughly the same, Wacka. Think about it, and think about those other two, more notable instances of geological uplift that I mentioned.
How much of a change in altitude, do you suppose, caused the Mississippi to flow “backwards” for a period of time, and caused the formation of Reelfoot Lake, back in the early 1800’s? I’m referring to activity on the New Madrid fault.
The Mississippi didn’t just eat it’s way through and continue on course, and Reelfoot is a lake to this day. Geological uplift. Temporary in the first instance, lasting in the second.
Why isn’t a canyon forming there instead, Wacka?
First, give me a reasonable explanation how the Grand Canyon was formed and the how the canyon near my house was formed, if it wasn't from uplift and erosion.
Again, I don't get what you are saying. The Colorado has flowed to the west for it's whole existence, flowed downhill. The amount of erosion, which is slightly greater than the continuing uplift has created the canyon over millions of years.
In the case of the Mississippi, it probably took one instance of not much uplift (About 10 feet from what I read) to make it flow backwards for a short time (about a day). After that the river ate through the temporary dam. The Reelfoot lake is probably formed when the land on the other side of the fault rose. The fault is along the SW edge of teh lake.