You're right, the claim is trivially true if G is finite. In the paper, I argue that Darwin must have implicitly allowed at least the possibility of G being infinite (i.e. life going on forever), or else, as you rightly point out, the Knight-Darwin Law would be trivial.
Even if life will eventually die out, we can pretend G is infinite, as a simplifying assumption, similarly to how physicists and chemists pretend crystals fill up infinite space in order to simplify talking about their translation symmetries. Under this simplifying assumption, "finite" and "infinite" can serve as concrete alternatives to vague slippery predicates like "small" and "large".
The following quote from Origin of Species reinforces that Darwin definitely didn't take for granted that life will someday end: "Nevertheless so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life!"