It would appear that AiG didn't read the primary paper too closely, which can be found here.
If you click on Figure 2 and go to the caption, you find these conclusions:
"Alignment of flanking genes confirms the synteny of the aligned regions. The combined alignments of VIT1 coding sequences showed significantly higher alignment scores than the genomic background (introns and intergenic regions) in the chain, as assessed by a Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Thus, we can statistically exclude that detected VIT1 remnants from humans represent spurious sequence matches."
Let's unpack this for a more general audience. Genes are stretches of DNA that are transcribed into RNA. That RNA is chopped up into chunks called exons and introns. The introns get tossed out and the exons are stitched together to create the functional messenger RNA that is then used as a template for making the vitellogenin protein.
So why does this matter? When you compare the genomes of divergent species you will find that the DNA associated with the exons, the chunks of DNA that eventually result in proteins, share more bases with the same exons in other species. The introns tend to have more differences than the exons. This is an expected outcome of evolution called conservation. This is caused by negative selection against deleterious mutations in the functional part of genes, and it results in fewer changes occurring in exons than in the introns which mostly lack function.
If humans (or other placental mammals) do have an egg laying ancestor then that egg laying ancestor should already have had conserved sequence in the exons of the vitellogenin gene. Even if vitellogenin became a pseudogene, that signal of conservation should stick around for a long time because it will take a lot of mutations to make that conservation of sequence blend into the genomic background. Think of it as trying to change a picture one pixel at a time. It will take a lot of changes before the image is degraded to the point that it looks like random noise.
What the authors of the paper found is that the regions corresponding to the exons of the vit1 gene in chickens shared more bases with the human genome than the introns and regions between genes. The evidence isn't about a set percentage of shared bases. Rather, it is about the difference in sequence conservation between the exons of the vitellogenin gene and the introns/intergenic regions that surround them.
This is the data that AiG needs to address. Why is there more conserved sequence in the regions of the vit1 exons than in the introns and intergenic regions? How does AiG explain this? Evolution explains this perfectly, but I don't see how creationism can. In fact, creationism can't even explain why the sequence divergence of exons and introns is different, and why that divergence correlates to evolutionary distance. The vit1 gene is hardly the only gene that poses a problem for creationism. Each and every gene conserved across many divergent vertebrate species poses a very strong challenge to creationism due to the pattern of sequence conservation between exons and introns, and this is also very strong evidence for evolution.