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.
The gist of what I'm seeing is that these defective genes present an open question in terms of their suffusion amidst the known universe. And yet I would posit that they manifest themselves only within a small range of the bios. For example, if one were looking for these defective genes one would not expect to find them in a slab of granite, and one could easily predict that 1,000 years from now one would still not expect to find them in a slab of granite.
So already this phenomenon demonstrates a fundamental attribute of design: a degree of consistency as to where it manifests itself throughout time and space. I would imagine there is also some consistency in how it behaves, maybe not much at all, but some.
I believe you when you pass along the information that these genes are considered defective. Obviously I do not have an answer for every case where a substance behaves unpredictably or manifests an apparent defect, but I don't think I would instinctively attribute raw "nothingness" or "chance" to the fact of their occurrence. The question may also be asked whether the presence of defects overrides what appears to be a far greater suffusion of design, purpose, etc. throughout the known universe.
I've been told the Netherlands is boycotting US Grain because we have introduced genetic consistencies to the detriment of biological inconsistencies which, by all appearances are flawed, and yet contribute to the health value of grain. There may be a good reason we do not live in an anti-septic universe.
Back to a quick question: Do you believe pseudogenes to be altogether void of any characteristsics that might apply to design?