Apparent age of the universe.
Stellar fuel--both for age of the universe and the influence of cosmic rays on the flip of the earth's magnetic field, claimed (earlier in this thread) to be related to observations in microscopic fossils.
Stellar fuel for formation of heavy elements including "curve of binding energy" and radionucleides used for radiocarbon dating.
Possible panspermia. Yeah, I know, "abiogenesis is not part of evolutionTM" ...except when a pro-evo poster wants to talk about it.
THe theory of evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese. For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.
Cosmology is important to evolution. If you want to have evolution be a workable theory, you need to have the conditions conducive to it. A young universe works against evolution as adequate time is necessary for the development and evolution of biologic particles into life. (and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution. Stephen Hawking lamented that a lot of scientists were running off to join the first church of the big bang)
In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology. It also feeds in to the mutation rates, etc. Geology also plays an important part here, as well as chemistry. Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc
No scientific field exists by itself, they are all interconnected in one way or another.