I wouldn't put it in the same league with a law of physics or else you could make some definite predictions about a population of eels (say) and what they will be in 2 million years. I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?
There are aspects of evolution that are as imprecise as economics, and for the same reason. You can't predict the future in detail. Natural selection, as an idea, got its start from the ideas of the Scottish economists like Adam Smith. The basic thought is that the marketplace brings order out of chaos, and that the most efficient economy occurs when there is an absence of central planning.
This is an imprecise formulation, and many general science writers extend it into areas where it doesn't belong.
Common descent, however is extremely precise in its formulation, and coupled with molecular biology, is as rigorous as physics. There's a lot of detailed work yet to be done, but common descent is continuously on the line, every time a new genome is mapped.
I was trying to get the poster I was responding to to realize that the laws of physics are never broken and are not similar to legal laws in any way.
Evolution can be considered a law of nature in that it invariably affects all organisms on a continuing basis. It is not a human construct. The ToE, which is a human construct, is not a law, nor has anyone stated such.