Yes, but making them invisible to you accomplishes the same thing and is preferable, IMO. It doesn't change what they can do. Keep in mind blocking, which can be done by any user for any reason at all, is not the same as banning, which is restricted to a smaller set of people with more power.
You block someone when you don't want to see their stuff anymore. It shouldn't have any effect on whether they can see or interact with your comments and the rest of the community. If they are block-worthy, other users can block them too.
You shouldn't really care about what they have to say after you've blocked them. If others see you never engaging with them, they should get a clear picture that you don't deem a reply necessary. If you're really concerned with rebutting everything they have to write about you or your ideas, then the correct course of behavior is not to block them.
This article mentions scientific studies that support its myriad factual claims but doesn't cite any of them. There is a lot of low-quality, tentative research about the health benefits of various diets. A serious discussion would need to include the limitations of such studies for the food in question.
This post seems to have little to do with science at best. At worst it invokes pseudoscience "superfood" health nonsense.
I don't think there's a lot of value to having the muscle transcriptome of an extinct species, since it's probably similar enough to extant marsupial or even eutherian muscle transcriptomes. And we're not going to be building adult thylacines from scratch using this information.
Very surprising RNA could survive this long, though.