Chapter 1: Preliminary Remarks about the Concept of Information
Chapter 2: Principles of Laws of Nature
Chapter 3: Information Is a Fundamental Entity
Chapter 4: The Five Levels of the Information Concept
Chapter 5: Delineation of the Information Concept
(stay tuned for Chapter 6)
Where's your proof? If you don't have any proof, it's not a theorm.
False. The formation of stars and planets is one such process. A planetary system has more information (in a technical sense) than the dust particles that went into making it.
Information gets into tree rings and ice cores by natural means. Information also gets into DNA by natural means.
A pseudoscientific paper authored by an engineer.
Has he submitted this for peer-review?
How would you falsify his “theorem”?
In order for any hypothesis to have any type of scientific merit it must stand up to peer-review.
That is how science works.
Also abiogensis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
Then how do stars create PAH’s?
You know, like caffeine and compounds in chocolate.
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Every last one of you infuriating goofballs on this thread is assigned the first two chapters of this book. Until you understand them you have NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INFORMATION THEORY.
Re: The Original Post, Dr Gitt is a crazyman who is attempting to disguise a laughable mess of mystical blather, non-sequiters, and general loopy moonman logic as a scientific paper. It is a fairly regular occurence that journals get insane submissions from hairy weirdos attempting to disprove (or prove) things like the second law of thermodynamics; often they keep a few of the craziest around to laugh at. Gitt's "paper" falls in this category.
More specific criticisms of his work can be found in my post here. Let me add one question to that, for anyone still defending this nonsense: what is Dr. Gitt's definition of information?