No they are not. The genetic makeup of humans and monkeys differs (according to evolutionists) by some 3%. This seems small, but in actuality it is a very large amount and it shows that human beings could in no way have descended from monkeys. In fact, even the closest relative to man, Neanderthal, which is said to have been only some 1% different in genetic material, has been proven through DNA analysis not to have been in any way an ancestor of man and totally unable to reproduce with homo sapiens. There are absolutely no Neanderthal traces in homo sapiens.
If we're only one percent different, we're 99 percent the same as Neanderthals.
You mean chimpanzees, not monkeys, but never mind.
It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it. However, there are dissenting voices and they also have evidence to support their stances (personally, I think their evidence is slightly shaky). Once again, you seem to have this "thing" for proof. Proof is a mathematical term; preponderance of evidence is a scientific method.
How much does it differ for everyone else?