Evolutionary Argument Against God - Abbreviated/Alternative Versions

The original EAAG that I wrote contains 6 premises and a conclusion and could be considered redundant in some areas. I have below a few alternative versions of it that shorten it out for a more easily digestible format.

In this version below I cut out premises 2-5 and leave in only the bare minimum of what's needed for the argument to drive the nail through:

1. If God chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
2. An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
3. Therefore, a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

It's also possible to formulate the argument using the 3 main arguments from the abbreviated version above and then justify premise 1 with 4 sub-premises that could be labeled in bullet points or be labeled 1A, 1B, 1C, or 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. 

1. If God chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
• If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by God, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
• Once the soul appeared, humans could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
• If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors also did and they did not have souls.
• This means God chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
2. An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
3. Therefore, a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

In this version below I eliminate premise 1 from the original and leave everything else in. Premise 1 of the original I think establishes the reason why there is a problem with god's compatibility with animal suffering but premise 6 of the original argument (premise 5 below) essentially reiterates the logical problem premise 1 in the original establishes, but may not be necessary:

1. If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by God, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
2. Once the soul appeared, humans could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
3. If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors also did and they did not have souls.
4. This means God chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
5. An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
6. Therefore, a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

There are I'm sure many other possible variations of this argument using differently worded premises which I'm sure someone can think of. I'll post new versions as they come up.