You left out polybaramin.
The following is from What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms by Wayne Frair.
GuidelinesIn accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2).
You ask, "Anythign in there sound like ‘purely religious classifications’"
Well, yes. If scripture claims have priority over all other considerations, as this article states, it does sound like religion to me. And it should to you too. Even the name means classification of created kinds.
Give it up. Baraminology is strictly religious in origin and everybody knows it.
Evidently you suppose that where scripture accounts of classes can and SHOULD be factrored into ONE aspect of the classification system, that it amounts ot hte WHOKE system being a ‘religious’ classification when infact it is anything but as anyone with half an iota of common sense can tell for themselves it is not a ‘religious classification ‘ sysyem as CLEARLY explained by the myriad of evidneces to the contrary
Apparently you missed the following- so I’ll post again- nothing ‘religious’ about any of these PARTS of the classification system which make up a MAJORITY of the criteria in Baraminology. And where the scriptural KINDS fit the remaining scientific criteria- which they DO, they are included for obvious scientific reasons.
Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.
Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.
Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.
Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.
Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.
In order to determine baraminic distances among types of organisms it is important to utilize the most significant data. For instance, molecular studies with mitochondrial DNA and RNA were useful with some turtles, but the author questioned the baraminic utility of ecologic criterions (Robinson, 1997). In a baraminic study of human with non-human primates, the morphological (form) features such as teeth and bones as well as ecological characters including feeding and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular (hemoglobin and RNA) information (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998a). Also see Garcia-Pozuelo-Ramos, 1997; 1998; 1999. However, baraminic research on a broad spectrum of felids has revealed that ecological data were least reliable, and chromosomal data of low reliability, The morphological and molecular (protein and RNA) information were most important (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998b). For ongoing studies Cavanaugh (1999-2000) recently has emphasized that: “