Chantiandeanie, I don't ask people for sources usually when they say something that is common sense or well known to me. I do ask for sources and proof when people say something like "humans can morph into an infant" or claim they can dowse or have psychic powers. Basically anything that rings false to me on first hearing.. or something I have never heard before (which is what I would classify your statement under). It is not something you should be defensive of, especially when you claimed something so radical (in my opinion anyway).
Anyway, I think you are quoting Dawkins out of context, and also if you read the full section on axolotls (including the paragraph you quoted) the author was merely stating that a butterfly, for example, turning back into a caterpillar would not be as surprising as a frog turning into a Prince as species like butterflies, frogs and salamanders, must contain the genetic information for each larval stage. And that this genetic material does not disappear when a creature moves to its next larval stage. As the Gurdon experiment showed, a cell from a frog was used in the cloning of a tadpole (I am simplifying yes but Jay has explained the process already).. A frog did not turn into a tadpole. So I really don't see how this supports your original statement. I believe the chapter you quoted was mainly to discuss paedomorphosis actually...and perhaps that is why you are confused as he is talking about how juvenile characteristics can be retained in adult species.
Also, I am not sure how the Uncertainty Principle applies to what you are saying, so if you could elaborate that would be great.