No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.
Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?
Also, the front wheel is connected to the frame in a very different way than the back wheel: single strong tube, only diverging further on; and there is no requirement for the front wheel to be powered - therefore the front wheel can (and does) move WRT the frame, something the back wheel must not do. Yes, they're both wheels, but that's where the similarity ends; the rest of the requirements are very different.
But then , cite "The entire sequence goes largely unnoticed by most riders, which is why some assert that they do not do it", end cite, is most probably true.
Back wheel is attached to two thin rods at 45 degreee angle. Weight tries to push the seat down and push the back wheel away (to increase the angle). That's why we need another tube to hold the wheel at constant disntance (and to keep the angle fixed).
You could probably make it work by creating similar strong joint keeping the angle between seat tube and wheel rods constant for the back wheel, but why? Hm, maybe to make a bicycle with both wheels turning :)
Sorry for my English, never had to describe bicycles and probably all the techincal terms are wrong :)
PS your English is fine! Only noticed a throught->through typo.
And, since the angle between vertical and the seat stay tends to be larger than that between vertical and front fork, the seat stay already would need to be a bit fatter (the fork is relatively more compressed and relatively less bent than the seat stay)
Also, the force you exert on the chain when riding the bike tries to bend the seat stay, too. That, too, would require a stronger seat stay.
However, there is a better (in the sense that it makes the frame stronger at the same weight or gives you a lighter frame of the same strength): the chain stay. It introduces a triangle in the structure, and triangles are strong.