Yeah, 'change' (just like Obama). Evolution has just as much depth as the big O. Evolutionists ignore the fact that genetic variation (and mutation) is constrained. Mostly because they don't understand the implications. At the popular level anyway.
"What answer do you have? What? Still no answer? Why would a bacteria under stress intentionally increase its mutation rate?"
The answer is the same, to survive. Why a bacterium does that is not the question. Haven't you clued in to that yet?
Evolutionists continually assert the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent to support their position. I know you don't understand, but that isn't a good thing.
It is well known that some DNA sequences are more subject to change than others.
For example the active domain of hemoglobin is highly conserved between species. Almost any change in that active domain will impair the proteins ability to properly bind oxygen and is thus a fatally deleterious mutation, thus any mutation in that region does not persist in the population. As a result almost every species of red blooded animal has the same Amino Acid sequence for this region (although not always the same DNA sequence to code for it, the code being redundant).
So if a bacteria increases its mutation rate while under stress in order to survive, WHAT IS IT ABOUT AN INCREASED MUTATION RATE that would confer a survival advantage?
According to the creationist paradigm ANY mutation is a deviation from the eternal and immortal and perfect being that the organism was created to be, and a symptom of our fallen universe. Why would deviating even more from the sequence it was created with confer a survival advantage?