Scientist still argue today if animals have morals at all.

Rowlands arguments are weak in this article:

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

basically the best he could come up with is that:

"In the case of the child-rescuing gorilla Binti Jua, for instance, "what sort of instinct is involved there? Do gorillas have an instinct to help unconscious boys in enclosures?" he said."

Where it was explained already that:

"One of the most obvious examples — the guilty look of a dog that has just eaten a forbidden food — may not be true remorse, but simply the dog responding appropriately to its owner's disappointment, according to a study published in the journal Behavioural Processes in 2009."

And

"And animals don't seem to develop or follow rules that serve no purpose for them or their species, suggesting they don't reason about morality."

A gorilla gets praised for being nice to people and gets punished if she hurts people, The gorilla there was just following the pattern of avoiding punishment for the group by keeping the other gorilla away.
Very simple explanation, there is no need to think that the gorilla actually wanted to protect the boy, she was just following a pattern usually thought to all animals in a zoo.

The only person who is over thinking things is Rowlands. especially when he claims that morality is not about thinking.
He should go back to school.

Also one must make the distinction between emotions and morality.
Animals are deeply emotional but they follow instinct/evolution and well thought(by humans) patterns/rules.

There is no solid evidence that suggest that they truly understand WHY something is right or wrong.

In the wild, animals have one simple rule, SURVIVE, that is why you see mothers killing their children if they even appear too weak.
Not because the child would suffer more but because he would be a threat/danger to the mother and the others since there is the chance that he will not be able to pull his weight.

How humans acquired morality is still a mystery we are still researching.

biological altruism= part of instinct/evolution for survival.

who coined the term? NVM

The point is that those things do no suggest or even hint at 'Altruism' as "the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others."
As you so well stated.

As long as it is not a conscious process it is not related to either 'Altruism' nor Morality since both are based on the conscious process.

This means that there is no evidence and neither logical reason to support the idea that "the basis for morality" has anything to do with the instinct/evolution for survival.

I view them as different factors that need to be addressed separately and all have an effect on our lives.

Trying to claim that Morality somehow evolved from those primitive concepts(like I mistook your claim) was what I thought you were saying. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

Instinct is present in humans and sometimes tells us to do a different thing that what our morality tells us.
(EG: kill your son to save your country. Morality says; kill your son, Instinct says; save your son.)

"'survival machines' for genes" are as named, they have a common goal, Survive, there is no real altruism behind it, they just evolved to understand that together they have better chances of survival and with time things became done by instinct.