Two models of metatheoretical scientific change (Foucault and Lakatos) are compared when the transformation from natural history (1775-1795) to evolutionary biology is studied. Different theses become controversial analysis made by philosophers of science (for example, the problem of incommensurability in order to compare and choose theories, the relations between theory and reality, and the various positions on the issue of truth). We not only identify the similarities and differences of the features of each model, but furthermore, we highlight their assumptions and analyze their limitations; from the validity criteria (by which it is assessed to what extent they fit the models in the historical event of the birth of the science of life) to fidelity (the degree of precision with which the concepts of each model can be applied). In conclusion, valuable information in accordance with the interest of the observer is lost; yet they explain changes in the origin of evolutionary biology. Both models provide an all-encompassing view on the scientific dynamics to the problem of the beginnings of life sciences; they resemble the source of information (history), and are similar in some aspects to the modeling framework and distance in other general thesis