Noone says that humans had evolved from monkeys (that I can recall). Evolutionists do say that humans and monkeys evolved along separate paths from and at one point there was a precursor animal to both of them.
As far as proof, you need to be very careful on your definition. Every mathematical and scientific theory is built on axioms (unproved assertions). Such as the definition of a line or of a circle (for mathematics). I think it is unreasonable to throw out all axioms, because then the words 'scientific proof' would have no meaning.
Additionally you will need to define a probability that says where a theory is reasonable or unreasonable. Scientists typically do this with the standard deviation of a number and line fits (such as χ² if you are familiar with that notation). By these methods you can say that if you repeated the observations randomly, there would be a certain percentage probability that they would fall within various ranges from what the theory predicts. This is the modern method of a scientific proof. You don't say that something is 100% certain, you say it is 98.353% certain, and you list your sources so that people can critique you and re-perform your calculations to make sure you are correct.
I would argue that based upon the above considerations, that the theory of evolutions has been proved to a certain level of confidence.
Well, apes evolved from monkeys, and humans evolved from apes, in fact a particular branch of the apes. The molecular boys claim we are closely related to the chimps, and have more recent common ancestors with the chimps than the chimps do with gorillas, so we really ARE an ape, or even a chimp. In fact, the radical faction wants to classify chimps as Hominids, i.e. in the same phylogentic family as humans.
Wake up and smell the coffee.