You're slip slidin' away again. You said "one natural explanation after another" had been ruled out. You cannot support this statement with there is no known genetic mechanism .... If you want to switch to that point instead, OK, but let's just make it clear that is a different statement.
BTW, just a side question. You mention pseudogenes. From your prior comments I assume you think the human race was specially created some tens of thousands of years ago and has no common ancestor with chimps or other apes. Yet I understand chimps and humans are not only closely related genetically in the coding sense but share pseudogenes too. If there is no family relationship, how do you explain that?
Now, what is a family? I know that its one level of the seven in taxonomic classification but not much more. Isn't the distinction between the levels arbitrary? I don't think they're even defined genetically, are they? If not why would you expect a genetic mechanism?
But let's assume (and I think this is generally accepted) that there is a strong correlation between taxonomic relatedness and genetic relatedness. To answer your question off the cuff, I'd say that there is no distinct genetic mechanism to account for family groupings. I expect that families groupings will naturally appear as a consequence of speciation and extinction. I expect that could even be modelled without too much trouble in a computer program. Might need some reality thrown in like mass extinctions. I'm guessing you won't like this answer.
First of all, even evolutionists do not claim that man descended directly from chimps anymore, they claim that they descended from a common ancestor. This (supposed) common ancestor keeps getting pushed back further and further, we are now at about 10 million years.
Second of all, the 'close genetics' is not true. This claim was begun to be made some ten years ago. At that time the human genome had not been sequenced. Even today the chimp genome has not been sequenced. So the claim was made just looking at a small set of genes. Whether this was representative or not, no one can tell. In addition, the same scientist that made this claim now says the difference between man and chimp is not 1.5-2% but more like 5%. So even on this really rough basis, the difference is quite large.
Lastly, the word pseudogene is not science but evolutionist pseudo-science. All that it means is 'similar'. There is no definition of it so it is totally unscientific and hence totally subjective. It therefore is not evidence or proof of anything.