I read the whole article, and the posts here, and understand the confusion.
The article simply points out that in the past there were various ideas proposed for when mankind first adapted the ability to digest alcohol -- was it 80 million years ago, or just 9,000?
So, the whole point of this article is to report on new research which gives us a new date: 10 million years ago.
Wherever did this new date come from?
From comparing the DNA of various primates, to see which ones could digest alcohol, and which couldn't.
Turns out, if I understand it correctly, the split came between human and orangutan lines, around 10 million years ago.
Humans "got it", orangutans don't.
Now, some here have posted this must mean our ancestors got so loaded on fermented fruit, they fell out of their trees, and the rest, as they say, is history.
But clearly, it's the reverse: our ancestors, having come down out of their trees to eat the forbidden fermented fruit, got so loaded they couldn't climb back up, and their orangutan cousins kicked them out of the canopy! ;-) Obviously, it would not be their last expulsion.
But there is nothing in this article that says the camp that believed it was 9,000 years (when man could make alcohol) have changed their mind. My reading of the article was exactly correct, even though a scientist has told me that I can't read and comprehend. There you go... that's science... in science we always read it with an agenda. That's because we get paid largely by tax dollars to come up with something revolutionary.