A virus is much simpler than a human, but even for that simple virus the effects of most of the mutations could not be predicted. A half of the mutations had harmful effects, and for a half of those it is unknown for now why they were harmful.
For a human the uncertainty about the effects of a mutation will be far greater than for one of the simplest viruses.
Is this the correct logic? I (very naively) would think that a small mutation of a virus, with the percent change that is being made, would be more of a fundamental change in the nature of the thing, so maybe less predictable. Where poking genes of a human being more of a (possibly strong!) statistical nudge, since most things seem to be spread across many genes, what's being expressed for sometimes environmental reasons, and even influenced by "junk DNA".
> We've been working with VersaLife’s new Chaos Model Genomatrix, which is trying to apply fractal mathematics to the study of genetic mutation. In essence, we've been trying to predict the future of human evolution using past mutations stored in the database of our mitochondria (which is passed uninterrupted from ancestral Eve through our mothers; it gives us an accurate and universal roadmap for our common past).
> The thing is… the sample you sent fits one of our evolutionary models of the future. We’re talking about someone who is ahead of the genetic curve by one step, maybe two. Do you know what this could mean for medicine alone? You have a living, breathing Nobel Prize on your hands!
(From Megan Reed's computer, in the prologue.)
And from human disease...?
glow in the dark jelly fish bits that biologist stick in other critters to see if, when and where it shows up (under a blacklight).