Should I bother? No, because all of my answers are irrelevant. But I'm a colossal trivia-loving bore, so fuck it.
If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:
Because they're not evolutionary questions.
Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
The first handful -- up through boron or so -- were created at the start of the universe while it was still at very high pressure. The rest came about from fusion reactions in exploding early stars.
How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
Precision? Well, I guess it's kind of precise if you ignore neutrons and screwy radioactives like technetium and promethium. And the island of stability. And the fact that bismuth, though radioactive, has such a long halflife that it may as well not be.
I actually don't know the answer about electron shells. I think it's a quantum mechanical thing, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of better-educated people than I who do.
Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
Planetary formation, natural ionic pairing between two fairly light, common, and highly reactive elements, heat + water, biological inorganic, biological organic (probably part of a defense mechanism), probably some ERV infecting a mitochondrion, disaccharides are an inevitable result of complex sugar chemistry, rocks, decomposing organic matter with high levels of aromatics, rocks, organic sulfur chemistry, degrading organics (and possibly primordial as well, like ethanol), rocks, rocks. Anything else?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
Electron shell physics.
When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)?
Well after. Atoms couldn't even form for quite a long time after the big bang because the universe was too hot and dense to allow nuclei and electrons to couple.
When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included?
A. It's not an evolutionary term, it's a physics term.
B. Each and every one of them, plus a lot of things that have nothing at all to do with chemistry. It's... quite a fascinating subject. One someone like you might be a bit too dumb to comprehend.
When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included?
It's not completely certain, but nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia are all believed to be involved. Elemental oxygen actually kills the reaction, but why that isn't a blow to the process would be too much for your God-walloped little brain.
Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation.
Because it's only tangential to evolution, and the whole "primordial soup" thing actually is covered, to the extent that it's understood.
Why don't they speculate about this?
The origin of elements and chemistry is outside the scope of biology. The abiogenesis thing has been a subject of active research for decades.
How did life develop from non-life?
Miller-Urey, and a number of experiments following it with different starting conditions and similar results.
