|American physicist-historian Thomas Kuhn gives the transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic system (earth-centric system) based cosmology (168AD), the old "normal science" paradigm, to a Copernican system (sun-centric system) based cosmology (1543), the new "normal science" paradigm, as an example of a "classic" paradigm shift.|
In 1962, Thomas Kuhn, an American physicist-historian, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the concept of "paradigm change"; the following is an example:
“Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change.”— Thomas Kuhn (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (pg. 89); cited by Herman Daly (1980) in “The Economic Thought of Frederick Soddy” (Ѻ)
The transitions between two paradigms, according to Kuhn, are what are known as scientific revolutions.
Heliocentric | Paradigm change
The adjacent diagram shows the paradigm change brought about the the replacement of the Ptolemaic system with the Copernican system.
Hmolscience | Paradigm change
See also: Goethean revolutionIn science, the recent 21st century hmolscience shift in thinking about viewing humans as "biological" entities governed by blind random chance "evolution" whose mandate is to pass on "DNA", i.e. the old ‘normal science’ paradigm, to that of humans viewed as "chnopsological" heat-driven "animate" molecules (human molecules), or chemical structures, governed by the "transformation" laws and mechanisms of modern chemical thermodynamics, has, in the view of some, come to be seen as the beginnings of a paradigm change, shift, or jump in ways about viewing human existence. The following example quotes outline this newly-forming paradigm shift view:
“Thims' brilliant book [Human Chemistry] symbolizes the beginning of a new era (epoch) in human history.”— Georgi Gladyshev (2006), Russian physical chemist “The chapters [Human Chemistry] are wonderfully written. I have a feeling it will be [Thims] who will get the public’s attention about the fundamental change in thinking in science.”— Jing Chen (2006), Chinese-born Canadian mathematician and economist 
“One of the most interesting topics [human molecule] I have ever had the pleasure to read. Going through it a second time, and looking forward to the third. [The Human Molecule] covers the most fundamental change in human knowledge since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species , by presenting a theory that we are fundamentally molecules, and that the question of life itself is a fundamentally flawed one. Especially important is the carefully laid out historical narrative of how Thims came to his theory of the human as a molecule. Whether you ultimately agree with this work or not, it represents a paradigm shift in viewing our place in the world.”— Jeff Tuhtan (2011), American civil engineer and ecological thermodynamicist 
|An more recent paradigm change, that of the old normal science Egyptian model of humans molded into shape from the clay of the earth and given the breath of life by a God (or gods) to that of the new coming to be seen as normal science model (hmolscience) of humans "synthesized" by the universe and given "animation" and or reactivity by the "powers" of the known forces of the universe as explained by the equations of thermodynamics.|
“[Human thermodynamics] is a branch of science that attempts to predict the behavior of people via chemical and thermodynamical equations. It is an interesting philosophy, a change of paradigm, perhaps even leaving having a broader explanation for human behavior than Darwinian evolution. Human thermodynamics can also be useful as a new framework for the origin of life. Libb Thims, for instance, proposed an online that the idea of Darwin’s [IQ=175] ‘dark pond’ which suddenly sprang to ‘life’, is not a very coherent one [defunct theory of life], and that it would be much more creditable and parsimonious to have as a rule that molecules bond and form ever more complex beings. Libb Thims also proposed a ‘human molecule’ where people are attracted to each other by chemical bonds [human chemical bond]. All this I believe to be a reasonable explanation: even if Darwin’s theory is still correct, they approach of thermodynamics and chemistry is a much more simple, and at the same time broader view. If the concept of biology is somehow redundant, then we must study it by means of chemistry and physics.”See also— David Bossens (2012), “Reflections: Criticisms of Science” 
● Goethean revolution
1. Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (pg. 10). University of Chicago Press.
2. Peer-review commentary on Thims' Human Chemistry, as found in the "Praise for" section of Human Chemistry (pages ix-x).
3. Tuhtan, Jeff. (2011). “Review: The Human Molecule”, Amazon.com Reviews, Jan 28.
4. Bossens, David. (2012). “Reflections: Criticisms of Science” (abs), LuLu.com, Jun 06.
● Paradigm shift – Wikipedia.