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.
In fact, the article doesn't even name such people, so it's not clear if the author even knows who they are, or were.
Indeed, I would suggest to you that those other dates -- 9,000 years and 80 million years -- might just as well have been straw-men, set up to make the author's point seem more important.
But if such people actually exist, then there is likely to be a quiet conversation going on amongst them, where they carefully examine the data from this new report, and see if they agree, or find reasons to disagree.
If they find reasons to disagree, then after more careful study or research, we will see their published response, then maybe a full-fledged scientific debate?
But I'm guessing this new data will prove very enlightening to all concerned, and will in some form be incorporated into future scientific studies...
So, bottom line: I suspect that your reading comprehension is just fine, but that you've squandered way too much time reading the wrong stuff, FRiend.