Without a more solid knowledge of the phenomenon you've iterated I can only make a few guesses. Let me start by noting that a certain observer has rendered the judgement, or conclusion, that these genes represent a "defect." Since I am not that observer I have no way or knowing whether the judgment is true.
Let me ask a couple questions so I can learn a little about this phenomenon, and then I may be in a better position to judge whether this phenomenon fits into the Beauregard Table of Winged Anomalies.
1.) Out of the whole spectrum of genetic phenomena, how often (just a shoot-from-the hip percentage will do) does this defect manifest itself?
2.) What are the characteristics of this phenomenon that would cause the observer to conclude it is defective?
Here's a short abstract , and this is the full paper (preprint) if you feel like wading in deep.
The genes aren't a defect, they're defective. More specifically, they are unexpressed.
Out of the whole spectrum of genetic phenomena, how often (just a shoot-from-the hip percentage will do) does this defect manifest itself?
Nobody knows yet. Some genes have no pseudogenes; some have scores. As a class project, i had some students look for pseudogenes of the ribosomal proteins. One had 19 closely related pseudogenes; several others had fewer; some had none.
What are the characteristics of this phenomenon that would cause the observer to conclude it is defective?
Pseudogenes in general either lack a functional promoter, or a start codon, and are therefore not transcribed. Because they're intron-less, they are considered to be a result of retrotransposition, another process that is at best useless and at worst malignant, and either way inconsistent with a design hypothesis.