As futile as this almost certainly is I'm going to see if I can figure out where Mike's thinking is going so far wrong.
There is not use discussing IC or anything so apparently sophisticated. Mike's problems are at a much, much lower level.
Mike, you talk about an animal 'needing' some trait to survive. You say if it doesn't have it then it is a gone goose so how can anything evolve? I think that might be a paraphrase of your position.
The point is: so what? If an individual animal doesn't have what it needs to survive and breed then it dies. Big deal.
Animals, as has been stated on this forum dozens of times, do NOT evolve. Populations do. The individual that died may well have died because it could not get food from the big bully down the block. The big bully survived. Why was it the big bully? Because, perhaps, it had a gene the inclinded it to be bigger and meaner.
You might say: But what if it is cold and the species doesn't have a nice long wooly coat. Then all the individual animals will die. Yes! Right on! And species go extinct all the time. Who will take advantage of whatever food supply is available in that cold climate? Another species, perhaps a very close relative perhaps no relation. One that is just enough cold adapted to handle the climate. Perhaps only at the warmer fringes of the climate. If any members of that species are born with a warmer coat they will be able to move a bit farther into the colder parts of the enviroment (farther north (sorry about the chauvinism to Sylas), farther up the mountain). They "need" the coat to survive in the cold. If they don't have it they move to where it is warm enough or they die. If they happen to have it they take advantage of an untouched food supply.
That has been made clear a lot of times here Mike. If you don't get it then it is clear that the science side is just not an environment that you have the necessary traits to survive ine.