Tip: your answer could be better if you discuss parents of wives of manu.
Firstly, you should be aware of the concept of मानस पुत्र or 'mental' sons. Manu did not copulate with someone to create humans, and as far as chances go, neither did Surya Bhagavaan to produce Manu. The Devas have created humans and all other creatures via the power of their minds. So, there's no real need for wives or mothers to exist. I'm not saying that they do not exist, what I'm saying is that they don't need to exist.
ब्रह्मणो मानसाः पुत्रा विदिताः षण्महर्षयः।
एकादश सुताः स्थाणोः ख्याताः परमतेजसः॥ - MB 1-67-1 Kumbhaghonam Samskarana
The 6 Maharshis are understood to be the mental sons of Brahma. The seventh was Sthaanu, who had 11 children.
उलूकान्सुषुवे काकी श्येनी श्येनान्व्यजायत।
भासी भासानजनयद्गृध्रांश्चैव जनाधिप॥ 1-67-57
The owls are born from Kaakii, the hawk is born from Shyenii, the chickens and the vultures are born from Bhaasii.
धृतराष्ट्री तु हंसांश्च कलहंसांश्च सर्वशः।
चक्रवाकांश्च भद्रा तु जनयामास सैव तु॥ 1-67-58
From Dhrtaraashtrii are born swans, geese and all similar creatures as well as Ruddy headed Geese.
And so on, there's ten more such verses for many types of animals in the same chapter, which you can read if you wish. Note that the word used is जनयामास or (न्)अजनयद् which clearly means birthed/created/produced.
This makes it clear that Mahabharata (as well as all other Puranas and Vedas, that I don't plan to reference) support creationism. There's no doubt here, unless people start cherry picking things, doing mental gymnastics (as one other answerer has already done), creating strawman arguments about what the theory of evolution claims (as another asnswerer has done here) or, rejecting the smriti by some sort of claims about interpolation.
Also, I'd like to make a comment about the accepted answer, I will use the words of Suradoe Uchiha here from this thread:
"This is one of the reasons I disapprove religious apologists so much - you guys have such a bad understanding of Sciences. All humans and apes come from a common 'APE-LIKE' ancestor, Brahman doesn't fit the description.".
This is absolutely spot on. If you accept evolution, then you must accept that the Shastras are wrong. There's no two ways about it. But, people do not even understand how the contemporary scientific mechanism works, or even what the hypotheses and theories are or what the evidence is, yet have full faith in it, neither do they understand what the scriptures talk about, and yet have faith in them. This leads to an ideology that I like to call made-up-on-the-spotism, where people fantasize in their minds how to make two completely separate positions come together.
I'm not interested in that, Evolution is wrong, very simply.
First let's define what we mean by evolution, and creationism of the scripture. The key factor that goes against the scripture as far as the current accepted understanding of evolution goes, is that species change, right? The conflict is simply that creature X turns into creature Y, whereas the scripture says creature Y doesn't change, it comes premade via the gods, and neither does creature Y turn to creature Z, it either goes extinct, or continues living as creature Y.
There's no evidence for a specie turning into another specie. Absolutely 0. The assertion of the proponents of evolution is that you take one specie, you add a magic variable called time (millions of years) and then you get another specie. That has not yet been seen to occur, even in bacteria, whom, at a generous rate of 2 hours for one generation, you should be able to observe some sort of evolution after 10 years (almost 44,000 generations). Many bacteria even divide once every few minutes, let alone 2 hours. For reference, humans at an estimate of 20 years per generation, are supposed to have noticeable change in some time over 200,000 years, after that point in history, humans have supposedly remained anatomically the same. 200,000 years amount to only 10,000 generations.
If there's any evidence of change of specie, NOT adaptation to environment, arising via evolution in bacteria, viruses or fungi or anything at all, then feel free to correct me.
Taking the case of dogs, we can observe that breeding different type of dogs and selecting for certain traits creates a huge variety of dogs, yet, the specie remains the same, they can inter-copulate and produce children. The inheritance of form from the parents remains true, and in the same manner, the form of a specie can change, various human races for example, but the specie remains the same.
The human genome project, completed in 2003, was supposed to be the greatest advancement of the 21st century. After the human genome was mapped, people were told, that half the diseases would vanish overnight via CRISPR or a similar gene technology. You were supposed to be able to see which genes decided what hair color or eye color or body type or length of hair or height and so on. What happened? Nothing, 20 years later. And, it's not because of some sort of regulatory blockage or gene tech not being good enough. Forget manifesting into reality and producing a change, it hasn't even done anything theoretically to produce a link between DNA and characteristics of creatures.
Of course, I'm not saying genes don't do anything, there's absolutely a relation to genes and the body. But, that relation isn't complete whatsoever. And, I'm not talking about epigenetics either. Those are important as is, but there's other unknown factors that are outside epigenetics and genetics and the environment, that influence your body and mind and life.
Anyways, You've probably been misled by inaccurate textbooks, so first I recommend you watch this video https://youtu.be/zpIqQ0pGs1E?si=GbDprzyXj_ZfsGvD for a, still incorrect, but more correct view of genetics.
Genetic mutation is real, adaptation to habitat/environment is real, evolution of specie is not. Even if it could be correct, it wouldn't be correct via the mechanism of genetic mutation, simply because genes do not contain the information to make up a human, or any creature.
Another explanation that is held by other intelligent people is that evolution is true, however it is 'directed' and not just based on maximal survival/reproduction. It doesn't quite make sense to me, but that's a position as well.
There's many issues with speciation (one specie turning into another or multiple others). Even noted by Darwin himself:
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? — On the Origin of Species, chapter 6, published 1859.
Very interesting question indeed, that has no answer till this date.
Another interesting issue is that if species turn into other specie, then in fossil records, there should be availability of millions or billions of such transition species, but it's not there. Almost as if... new species are created (by someone) after the old ones die, rather than any transition occurring. This is my current position, and I understand that the scripture agrees with it.
Darwin, in my understanding shouldn't even be treated as some sort of evil authority, the real problem has arisen by the huge swathes of materialist 'believers' in the scientific system, who think everything must be explained by matter and treat certain theories as the word of God.
Anyhow, this is straying from the question. My understanding and opinion aside, the answer to your question, is that the scripture (correctly) rejects evolution. Creationism (via Devataas) is correct according to it.
The Scripture is clear and contrary to the expert consensus. Either the consensus is correct or the scripture, both cannot be so at once. There's many more open questions than you realize, I have more answers, but not all, either. I'll leave it upto you to decide.
PS: The source for the translations is me, you can double check with any Sanskrit speaker if there's an issue, I can assure that everything is done with accuracy, objectivity and in good faith.
