But it doesn’t. Any degree of conservation is readily explained by the sequence having got stuck on some on some local optimum, with steep sides. So it is entirely possible that many, many such other peaks exist.
You can’t get any appreciable estimation of the frequency with which other such peaks exist when you have only sampled approximately 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000561% of it.
Creationists like to assert that evolution could at most have sampled roughly 10^40 novel sequences in the entire history of life.
But the total sequence space for even a 100 amino acid long protein is 1.267650600228229401496703205376×10^130
So we subtract 10^40 from that, and we get that there are still 1.2676506002282294014967032053759999999999999999999999×10^130 sequences left.
In other words you want to claim we can have high confidence about how many functional sequences there are when we have sampled 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000079% of that space.
If you can convince yourself of that, then we can’t have a conversation because your position is obviously irrational.