Are you aware of Dr. Gitts record in the Scientific Community ?
It sounds like you think Gitt has had some impact on the scientific community. Can you tell me where you heard this?
In general, if you want to see the impact of any particular paper or idea, you can go to Google Scholar and look at citations. For example, 'information theory' which is the standard measure of information in all of the sciences (computer science, biology, engineering, astronomy, chemistry etc) is based on the work of Shannon. As you can see, Shannon's paper has over 20,000 citations.
Furthermore, this work is so widely accepted that the majority of scientists don't even bother to cite Shannon when measuring information. If you do a search on "information theory" you will get some 699,000 papers. Of these, you will have to search very carefully to find those papers that do not fully accept the standard theory. Shannon's definition is now the accepted definition in science.
If you want a ballpark figure, one can say that a paper with more than 50 citations is having at least a little impact on their field. Papers with more than 500 citations are having a significant impact.
Here is a search on all the papers that cite Gitt. Looks like his top cited paper has 15 citations. Of these, I do not know if any or all say anything favorable about his ideas. You can check if you like.
I would conclude from this that Gitt is having no impact on science and his definitions have produced no change in how the scientific community views information theory. However, if you have some other measure of impact, you are welcome to provide links. I would enjoy seeing your evidence.
If you use the word "information" in a scientific setting, the assumption will be that you are using Shannon's definition. However, I must note that most scientists that understand "information theory" accept that this classic definition does not account for all aspects of information. There are a number of papers (with hundreds of citations) that discuss information from the point of view of trying to include the "meaning" of a stimulus. This is an area of science sometimes called "semantic information". If you search on Google Scholar, you will find a number of papers on this issue. Again, Gitt is not a significant contributor to this field either (based on citations).
Macro Evolution is not accepted by everyone you consider Mainstream. (Arguing from Authority) It goes against the Laws of Nature and other Scientific Laws. Since the ToE says that these Laws of Nature have been broken or bent, it is up to the theory believers to provide the burden of proof that says that; Evolution beyond the genetic boundary of a species has broken the Laws of Nature.
Around 99% of trained earth and life scientists in the world accept evolution. There are various kinds of surveys. Some get 99.9%. If you go to scientists outside of those trained in evolutionary theory (engineers etc), you can get up to around 5% that accept some degree of creation science. However, this would include old earth creationists that might also accept macro-evolution but not abiogenesis.
I do not known anyone trained in evolutionary theory that believes it breaks any scientific laws. In fact, I can not name anyone that has taken a college level course in evolutionary theory that would say it breaks a scientific law. However, I am sure you will find me one.
Hope that helps with some of the statistics.