It is useless to continue this circular argument when you wont even stipulate that the Theory of Evolution is what it is. You are twisting it into something it has nothing to do with, in order to discredit it.
"What I want to know is: What is the ordering principle or natural law that accounts for this? "
Explain to me what an ordering principle of "natural law" (whatis that?) is? That has nothing to do with science.
I will say that evolution and geography are almost perfectly compatible. In fact, if the geological record conflicted with the Theory and the fossil record it would be a huge problem. (obviously it fits just about perfectly) The Plate tectonics Theory also bolsters evolution. These are scientific disciplines that could cause problems for evolution if they were contradictary.
No matter what scientists who work in this field tell you, you refuse to accept that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You refuse to accept that the only thing needed for evolution to work is life that can reproduce. No matter how much you try to widen the scope of the Theory, the definition will remain the same:
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.
Show me where abiogenesis has anything to do with that. PLEASE.
Also, what do you think is responsible for the vast diversity of life on earth? And how would you explain the fossil record? Let's see how well your ideas stand to scrutiny.
Not true; I know very well that Darwin did not deal with issues of origins at all. That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis.
However, it is also true that many Darwinist scientists cannot resist the idea of abiogenesis, for it is a view that conforms very well with the Darwinist expectation that evolution is a purely natural development that is essentially random in character. Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins -- regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. Therefore their expectation is that the origin bottoms out in the material basis of life, "clever matter" or "clever chemicals" if you wish: This is what abiogenesis states.
You wrote: "All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."
I beg to differ. Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time. Do you see the distinction here? Anyhoot, you don't find many non-Darwinists arguing for abiogenesis.
FWIW