Certainly. "Extinct" monkeys, to be sure, but monkeys nevertheless Or you could have pointed to (again, "extinct") apes, if you wanted something more recent. Or to fish, if you wanted to back further. Or to yeast-like single-celled organisms, if you like.
I notice you conveniently did not say we "descend" from monkeys, but used instead the common Darwinist ready-made phrase, "share common ancestors."
Then let me not stand open to puerile accusations of subterfuge: We descend from monkeys. The only way that statement can be construed as untrue is to take the position that we are still a species of monkey. There is merit in that view. But then this statement is irrefutable: We descended to monkeys.
I thought there were many people who descended from horses, the infamous "horses a$$".
Seems to me that the two above declarative statements, We descend from monkeys and We descended to monkeys. contradict each others. If we descended TO monkeys, it follows that we must have been something other than monkeys. Iow, we did not descend FROM monkeys to begin with since we were other than monkeys, but through passage of time descended TO monkeys.
No matter how you slice it, it doesnt' fit, unless one forces to make it fit. The shoe doesn't fit.