It just talks about the pre-existing viral J protein that acquired the ability to bind a different protein on E. coli, called OmpF, once the LamB protein, to which it normally binds, was turned off. Since both, LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, a few mutations in the viral gene fortuitously led to ability of J protein to bind to OmpF. Hence, one out of three functional pre-existing proteins gained the ability to bind a protein similar to one it normally binds, without any change in its native 3-dimensional structure.
Holy shit, that's what we're screaming!
So you do see that the whole protein doesn't have to be built from scratch, and that pre-existing structures can be slightly modified.
That's why your math is wrong: it assumes each protein has to be built from scratch, whole cloth.
That why you can convince exactly nobody that your argument has merit.
This paper has nothing to do with the issue at hand since it talks neither about evolution of new functional protein folds nor about the ratio of functional amino acid sequences versus the vast combinatorial space.
Actually, as it turns out, that "issue at hand" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. As has been explained to you ad nauseum.
And this binding ability proves what exactly? That you can produce circulatory system, all joints and bones in your body, or complex, image-forming eyes 100 times independently with 10^43 changes in the spatial positions of molecules?
Well, that number is bullshit. And you're missing quite a few steps in the logic. But ultimately, yeah, that is a ramification.